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 .
Response to Amendment
In an amendment filed 06/25/2026, claims 1, 3, 13 and 15 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-5, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joffer et al. (US 20080225143 A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 20250095537 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Joffer teaches a LED display comprising: at least one pixel, each pixel having three subchannels arranged in a triangular configuration; (Para 30-31. Figs 1 and 4. Each package 13A is a pixel containing red, green and blue led in a triangular configuration)
And a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display. (Para 4. different image has higher and lower different brightness)
However Joffer does not teach and a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display by actuating any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display.
However Kim teaches a control system configured to actuate any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display. (Para 150, 161. When the color temperature of ambient light increases, the controller 300 may control each of the pixels so that light having the adjusted color temperature (or color coordinates) is generated according to the estimated color temperature in a predetermined time interval is the downsampling mode, when the ambient color temperature measured by the illumination sensor 100 decreases, the controller 300 may control the display panel so that the color temperature (or color coordinates) of light emitted by the pixels increases during the second time interval t2 is the temporal scanning mode)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Joffer with Kim to teach a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display by actuating any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display in order to improve image display quality by accounting for ambient light.
Regarding claim 2, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, and Joffer further teaches wherein the three subchannels comprise a red LED, green LED, and a blue LED, the blue LED positioned below the red LED and the green LED, wherein a height of the triangular configuration is less than the width of the triangular configuration. (Para 30-31. Figs 1 and 4. Each package 13A is a pixel containing red, green and blue led in a triangular configuration. a height of the triangular configuration is less than the width of the triangular configuration when the three LEDs are connected through center of each LED)
Regarding claim 3, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the control system is operable to switch between the downsampling mode, the temporal scanning mode, and a normal mode. (Para 150, 161. See rejection for claim 1, so when color temperature of ambient light increases is the downsampling mode, when color temperature of ambient light decreases, it is the temporal scanning mode, and a normal mode is when there is no change it is the normal mode)
Regarding claim 4, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 3, and Kim further teaches wherein the control system is operable to switch between the downsampling mode, the temporal scanning mode, and the normal mode based on a detected light level around the LED display. (Para 150, 161. See rejection for claim 1, so when color temperature of ambient light increases is the downsampling mode, when color temperature of ambient light decreases, it is the temporal scanning mode, and a normal mode is when there is no change it is the normal mode)
Regarding claim 5, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, and Joffer further comprising at least one lens associated with at least one subchannel, the at least one lens configured to direct light emitted from the at least one subchannel downwards below a horizontal plane. (Para 35. The plastic lens of LED devices shoulders and blocks the light of other LEDs. This the plastic lens make the light going in one direction instead of going to side. So depending on perspective, the direction would be downward)
Regarding claim 13, refer to rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, refer to rejection for claim 3.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joffer et al. (US 20080225143 A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 20210142721 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Joffer teaches a LED display comprising: at least one pixel, each pixel having three subchannels arranged in a triangular configuration; (Para 30-31. Figs 1 and 4. Each package 13A is a pixel containing red, green and blue led in a triangular configuration)
and a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display. (Para 4. different image has higher and lower different brightness)
However Joffer does not teach and a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display by actuating any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display.
However Kim teaches and a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display by actuating any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display. (Para 26-27. Fig. 2A. display area 2A shows downsampling mode in fifth row of display area 210, and temporal scanning mode in second and third row of display area 210)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Joffer with Kim to teach and a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display by actuating any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display in order to improve display viewing experience when displays with different resolution form a single display.
Regarding claim 6, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the downsampling mode comprises a pixel pitch of two times P, where P is the distance between two adjacent pixels (Fig. 2A shows pixel pitch of two times P, where P is the distance between two adjacent pixels, as each rectangle is one pixel)
However Kim does not teach three out of every four pixels are off.
However Kim further teaches various pixel deactivation patterns. (Para 36-37)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Joffer and Kim with the additional teaching of Kim to teach three out of every four pixels are off in order to improve display viewing experience when displays with different resolution form a single display when the deactivation of every four pixels are off are suitable as decided by the pattern generator of Kim.
Regarding claim 7, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the downsampling mode comprises a pixel pitch of P times square root of two, where P is the distance between two adjacent pixels, (Para 26-27. Fig. 2A a pixel pitch of P times square root of two, where P is the distance between two adjacent pixels, as each rectangle is one pixel)
and two out of every four pixels are off. (Fig. 2A: fifth row shows two out of every four pixels are off. Para 27)
Regarding claim 9, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the temporal scanning mode comprises only one pixel being on in a grid of 2×2 pixels of the LED display for each quarter of a frame time, with a different pixel being on in each quarter of the frame time. (Para 26-27. Fig. 2A: shows one pixel in second row being on in a grid of 2×2 pixels of the LED display for each quarter of a frame time, with a different pixel being on in each quarter of the frame time when the only one pixel is located in first quarter of the display frame, and a different pixel being located in other three quarters of the display frame)
Regarding claim 10, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the temporal scanning mode comprises only two diagonal pixels being on in a grid of 2×2 pixels of the LED display for each half of a frame time, with a different pixel being on in each half of the frame time. (Para 26-27. Fig. 2A: shows two diagonal pixels in second row and third row being on in a grid of 2×2 pixels of the LED display for each half of a frame time, with a different pixel being on in each half of the frame time when the two diagonal pixels is located in first half of the display frame, and a different pixel being located in second half of the display frame)
Regarding claim 13, refer to rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Joffer and Kim already teach the method of claim 13, and Joffer further teaches further comprising inline clinching the three subchannels to a circuit board, wherein the triangular configuration has a height that is less than its width. (Para 30-31. Figs 1 and 4. Each package 13A is a pixel containing red, green and blue led in a triangular configuration. a height of the triangular configuration is less than the width of the triangular configuration when the three LEDs are connected through center of each LED)
Regarding claim 15, Joffer and Kim already teach the method of claim 13, and Joffer further teaches further comprising directing light emitted from the pixel downwards about 5° to about 15° below a horizontal plane. (Para 30. Fig. 1 shows LED package with light emission, so the horizontal plane would be located where light emitted from the pixel downwards about 5° to about 15° below the horizontal plane)
Regarding claim 17, refer to rejection for claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, refer to rejection for claim 9.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joffer et al. (US 20080225143 A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 20210142721 A1), further in view of Mori et al. (US 20110254879 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, However Joffer and Kim do not teach wherein the downsampling mode comprises, for each pixel, two subchannels being off and one subchannel being on.
However Mori teaches wherein the downsampling mode comprises, for each pixel, two subchannels being off and one subchannel being on. (Para 103, 124, so depending on grayscale requirement for the image, only one subchannel would be turned on)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Joffer and Kim with Mori to teach wherein the downsampling mode comprises, for each pixel, two subchannels being off and one subchannel being on in order to properly display image depending grayscale mapping of the image.
Regarding claim 18, Joffer and Kim already teach the method of claim 13,
However Joffer and Kim do not teach further comprising, in the downsampling mode, actuating for each pixel, a selection of subchannels being off at a given time.
However Mori teaches in the downsampling mode, actuating for each pixel, a selection of subchannels being off at a given time. (Para 103, 124, so depending on grayscale requirement for the image, only one subchannel would be turned on)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Joffer and Kim with Mori to teach in the downsampling mode, actuating for each pixel, a selection of subchannels being off at a given time in order to properly display image depending grayscale mapping of the image.
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joffer et al. (US 20080225143 A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 20210142721 A1), further in view of Liu et al. (US 20170186381 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, However Joffer and Kim do not teach wherein the temporal scanning mode comprises only red subchannels being on in a red third of a frame time, only green subchannels being on in a green third of the frame time, and only blue subchannels being on in a blue third of the frame time.
However Liu teaches only red subchannels being on in a red third of a frame time, only green subchannels being on in a green third of the frame time, and only blue subchannels being on in a blue third of the frame time. (Para 77. Field sequential display with RGB subpixels)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Joffer and Kim with Liu to teach wherein the temporal scanning mode comprises only red subchannels being on in a red third of a frame time, only green subchannels being on in a green third of the frame time, and only blue subchannels being on in a blue third of the frame time in order to properly display image with field sequential driving method.
Regarding claim 12, Joffer and Kim already teach the LED display of claim 1, However Joffer and Kim do not teach wherein the temporal scanning mode comprises only one subchannel being on in each pixel in each third of a frame time.
However Liu teaches only one subchannel being on in each pixel in each third of a frame time. (Para 77. Field sequential display with RGB subpixels)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Joffer and Kim with Liu to teach wherein the temporal scanning mode comprises only one subchannel being on in each pixel in each third of a frame time in order to properly display image with field sequential driving method.
Regarding claim 20, Joffer and Kim already teach the method of claim 13,
However Joffer and Kim do not teach further comprising, in the temporal scanning mode, actuating only a selection of subchannels being on in each pixel in each fraction of a frame time.
However Liu teaches actuating only a selection of subchannels being on in each pixel in each fraction of a frame time. (Para 77. Field sequential display with RGB subpixels)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Joffer and Kim with Liu to teach in the temporal scanning mode, actuating only a selection of subchannels being on in each pixel in each fraction of a frame time in order to properly display image with field sequential driving method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, applicant alleged that “The Examiner has rejected claims 1-5, 13 and 16 under 35 USC 103 over Joffer et al. (US 20080225143) in view of Kim et al. (US 20250095537). Applicant submits that neither Joffer nor Kim, whether alone or in combination, disclose all of the features of independent claims 1 and 13.
The Examiner admits that Joffer does not disclose a control system configured to actuate any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display. Instead, the Examiner alleges that Kim discloses this feature at paragraphs [0150] and [0161] in order to support the rejection. Applicant submits that Kim does not disclose this feature.
Kim is generally directed to a display device that decreases the luminance of pixels when ambient light decreases and increases the luminance of the pixels when the ambient light increases, so as to avoid excessive and unnecessary consumption of power when ambient illumination is high and less pixel luminance would be necessary to allow for acceptable viewing, as well as to allow for increased pixel luminance when ambient illumination is low and a higher pixel luminance is needed for acceptable viewing of the display device (see e.g., paragraph [0004], Abstract). In short, Kim is directed to reducing power consumption by avoiding having a fixed screen brightness when less brightness may be necessary in high ambient light environments (see e.g., paragraph [0004], Abstract). Particularly, this reduction and increase in pixel luminance in response to changes in ambient light increases and decreases, respectively, is measured by reducing and increasing colour temperature of the pixels.
Kim, at paragraph [0135], defines "color temperature" as follows:
"Specifically, the color temperature is a parameter describing the color of light radiated from a light source as a temperature. The temperature of a black body characterized by radiating different colors of light according to the temperature may be defined as color temperature. In addition, the color temperature may be expressed in units of absolute temperature, Kelvin (K). In addition, correlated color temperature (CCT) may refer to the approximated color temperature of each of the light sources that deviate somewhat from the trajectory of the black body. In addition, in the display device DD, the CCT may be used to mean the color temperature, and may be indicated using a light source color or a
white point."
In this context, at paragraph [0161] of Kim cited by the Examiner, Kim merely describes increasing the colour temperature of light emitted by the pixels in response to a decrease in the ambient colour temperature (see in context of paraph [0154]: when ambient colour temperature decreases in response to a change in lighting as when moving from a place below an LED lamp to a place below an incandescent lamp, the method in Kim stabilizes the estimated colour temperature of the display panel by gradually increasing it).
In the same vein, at paragraph [0150] of Kim cited by the Examiner, Kim merely describes decreasing the estimated colour of the pixels in response to an increase in the ambient light colour temperature such that the estimated colour temperature is ultimately maintained to be the same before and after the increase in the ambient light colour temperature (read in context of paragraphs [0142], [0144]), to counteract the estimated colour temperature of the display panel rapidly increasing after the ambient colour temperature increases in response to a change in lighting as when moving from a place below an incandescent lamp to a place below an LED lamp, the estimated colour temperature of the pixels is decreased (see paragraph [0137]). That is, paragraph [0150] of Kim describes stabilizing (that is, reducing) the estimated colour temperature of the display panel after it has rapidly increased in response to an increase in the ambient colour temperature.
Neither of these processes of Kim relate to "a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display by actuating any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display".
Instead, the present application describes selectively activating and deactivation certain pixels and/or certain subchannels of pixels in a predetermined configuration in adjacent areas and/or timing sequence (see e.g., paragraphs [0104], [0018]-[0019], [0022]-[0025]), FIGs. 9-16). The downsampling mode and the temporal scanning mode are described as being in the context of reducing an overall luminance of the LED display (see e.g., paragraphs [0084] and [0104]), not merely a localized intermediary region between adjacent regions of high ppi and low ppi.
Kim is silent on any such matters, but instead merely describes controlling "color temperature" in relation to increasing or decreasing the luminance of the pixels themselves (see e.g., paragraphs [0006]-[0024]).”
Examiner finds the argument not persuasive. In this case, please note that the examiner in interpreted the claim to mean a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display by actuating actuate any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display and lower its brightness based on images as the transitional term “comprising” is open ended, therefore Joffer teaches a control system configured to reduce an overall luminance of the LED display as different image has higher and lower different brightness, and the teaching of Kim is brought in to show to improve image display quality by accounting for ambient light.
Furthermore, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the definition of downsampling mode and the temporal scanning mode) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the examiner clearly indicated in the rejections how Examiner interpreted the limitation such as “downsampling mode” and “temporal scanning mode”, and will not be repeated here.
On pages 8-10, applicant alleged that “Joffer nor Kim '721, whether alone or in combination, disclose all of the features of independent claims 1 and 13.
The Examiner admits that Joffer does not disclose a control system configured to actuate any one or more of a downsampling mode or a temporal scanning mode of the LED display. Instead, the Examiner alleges that Kim discloses this feature at paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and FIG. 2A in order to support the rejection. Applicant submits that Kim '721 does not disclose this feature.
Without prejudice or disclaimer and to clarify the claimed embodiments, Applicant amends claim 1 and 13 to make clear that the system is configured to "reduce an overall luminance of the LED display" by activating the downsampling mode or temporal scanning mode.
Kim '721 is generally directed at making an OLED display panel less visibly jarring and distracting to a user from an abrupt drop in pixels per inch between adjacent portions of the display panel (see e.g., paragraph [0004] to [0007]). Kim '721 frames this issue as follows "the drop in PPI from four hundred PPI to one hundred fifty PPI at a border between the first area and the second area may be very noticeable to a person viewing the display panel. The difference may be visibly jarring to a user and may distract a user." Kim '721 aims to make the drop in pixels per inch gradual between these adjacent portions of the display panel by deactivating some pixels around the border between these adjacent portions, for example, to make, at the border between the two adjacent portions of the display, "the number of pixels that are emitting light in the row in the first area is the same as the number of pixels that are emitting light in the row of the second area". This is for the specific goal of local border artefact mitigation.
It is in this context of "gradual resolution panel driving" that paragraphs [0027] to [0027] and FIG. 2A describes deactivating some pixels. The example pattern of pixel activation and deactivation across rows in a first area 210 shown in FIG. 2A shows a gradual reduction in the number of activated pixels in the first area 210 so as to achieve this gradual reduction of pixels per inch so as to avoid having an abrupt drop in pixels per inch between adjacent portions of the display as the viewer's eyes move from the first area 210 to the second area 220. The goal of this pattern of pixel activation and deactivation is underscored in paragraph [0028] which states that "for the first area 210, the virtual pixel density gradually decreases, for the second area 220 the virtual pixel density is constant, for the third area 230 the virtual pixel density is constant, and there is a much lamer drop in virtual pixel density where the third area 230 and the second area 220 border compared to where the first area 210 and the second area 220 border" (emphasis added).
That is, the example pattern of pixel activation and deactivation described in first area 210 and shown in FIG. 2A allows for a much lower drop in virtual pixel density where the first area 210 and the second area 220 border. This achieves Kim '721's goal of making the display panel less visibly jarring from an abrupt large drop in virtual pixel density between adjacent portions of the display panel.
Furthermore, while the Examiner alleges that display area 2A in FIG. 2A shows a downsampling mode in fifth row of display area 210, presumably on the basis of the pattern of pixels activated and deactivated in that row only, such pattern does not extend outside the fifth row and is inconsistent with the pattern of pixel activation and deactivation in adjacent rows. This is an important distinction as the downsampling mode in embodiments of the present application includes a goal of visibly reducing overall brightness in or light trespass from the display using a pattern of activation and deactivation of pixels (or subchannels) in the display. Having the pattern only pertain to a single row of pixels would not achieve this goal.
That is, generally speaking, Kim's approach is to maximize uniformity between two local regions (low and high ppi) by maintaining the intermediary luminance as the same. Instead, the present application describes reducing the overall luminance of the display such as by lowering visual brightness across the display and doing so advantageously without sacrificing grayscale color quality.
Furthermore, while the Examiner alleges that Kim '721 shows a temporal scanning mode in the second and third row of display area 210, such illustration and description in Kim '721 is silent on any timing sequence in which pixel activation and deactivation is effected in these two rows.
Instead, the present application describes selectively activating and deactivation certain pixels and/or certain subchannels of pixels in a predetermined configuration in adjacent areas and/or timing sequence (see e.g., paragraphs [0104], [0018]-[0019], [0022]-[0025]), FIGs. 9-16). The downsampling mode and the temporal scanning mode are described as being in the context of reducing the overall luminance of the display (see e.g., paragraphs [0084] and [0104]), not merely a localized intermediary region between adjacent regions of high ppi and low ppi.
Applicant submits that neither Joffer nor Kim (US 20210142721), whether alone or in combination, support the rejection to claims 1 or 13 as amended. Applicant submits that, at least by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 or 13 as amended, neither Joffer nor Kim (US 20250095537), whether alone or in combination, support the rejection to claims 6-7, 9-10, 14-15, 17, and 19. Accordingly, Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection to claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 17 and 19 under 35 USC 103.”
Examiner finds the argument not persuasive. In addition to the examiner’s response presented above, the Examiner want to further emphasize to the applicant that elements in the arguments are not presented in the claim, therefore are not taken into consideration when the claims are examined and rejected, and specification does not define the limitations such as “downsampling mode” and “temporal scanning mode” in a close ended form. Examiner has clearly indicated how the limitation such as “downsampling mode” and “temporal scanning mode” are interpreted in the rejection of claims, and is not repeated here.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/HANG LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights