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
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (USPN 2022/0301498 A1) in view of Yeh et al. (USPN 2021/0043129 A1).
As to claim 1, Park teaches a light-emitting module, comprising:
N×M pixel modules arranged in a two-dimensional array wherein N and M are positive integers greater than or equal to 2 (see at least fig. 2 and [0061] “the display module 10 may include pixels in an M×N (M and N are integers of 2 or more) array, that is, a plurality of pixels arranged two dimensionally”);
wherein each of the pixel modules comprises a plurality of pixels and a driving circuit for controlling the plurality of pixels (see at least fig. 5 and [0094] “One micro pixel controller 130 may control two or more pixels P, .. a case in which one micro pixel controller 130 controls four pixels P is illustrated”),
each of the pixels comprises a plurality of light-emitting diodes (see at least fig. 2 and [0063] “The pixel P may include three sub-pixels SP(R), SP(G), and SP(B)”), and
the driving circuit is configured to apply a driving current to the light-emitting diodes in the pixel module (see at least [0114] “the pixel circuit 131P may output a driving current ID for driving the inorganic light-emitting element 120.”, [0123] “The display module 10 according to one embodiment may control the inorganic light-emitting element 120 by combining pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) control for controlling the amplitude of the driving current and pulse width modulation (PWM) control for controlling a pulse width of the driving current.”).
Park does not directly teach wherein in a time period, a duty cycle of a working interval of the driving current is 1/J, and in the working interval, the driving current is J times an average driving current, and J is a positive integer equal to or greater than 2.
Yeh teaches wherein in a time period, a duty cycle of a working interval of the driving current is 1/J, and in the working interval, the driving current is J times an average driving current, and J is a positive integer equal to or greater than 2 (see at least [0003] “control the drive current to an average value (hereinafter referred to as “average current”) so that the average current corresponds to the expected brightness, … and to control the expected brightness by controlling the duty cycle of the LED during the driving period.” - note this is duty cycle = length of time that the LED is turned on during the driving period; [0005] “in one display period, the N rows of LEDs are sequentially driven, so the driving time of the LEDs of each row will be only one-N of the display period. .. Since the driving time of the LED is short, the pulse current signal must be increased in order to generate sufficient brightness.” - note this is driving time (on time) per LED row = 1/N of the total period, therefore this corresponds to a duty cycle of 1/N; and [0036] “the processing circuit 220 determines that the average current corresponding to the frame display signal Sd is 40 microamperes (2 mA is divided by 50). Then, the processing circuit 220 calculates that the driving duty cycle is 80% (because) according to the preset driving current value (for example, 50 uA, and 50×0.8=40).” - note this is average current = driving current x duty cycle. Therefore, Yeh teaches the claimed relationship in substance: duty cycle = 1/J, and driving current = J × average current).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to operate using Yeh’s taught relationship between duty cycle and driving current in order to control brightness under time-division driving conditions. Applying Yeh’s teaching to Park’s PWM-driven light-emitting module would have predictably resulted in: selecting a duty cycle corresponding to a fraction of the period (e.g., 1/J), and increasing the driving current proportionally (J×) to maintain the same average current (brightness), which is nothing more than the application of a known mathematical relationship to a known PWM-driven display system to achieve predictable brightness control. Such modification merely involves applying a known relationship (current–duty proportionality) to a known system (PWM-driven LEDs) to obtain predictable results (maintained brightness).
As to claim 7, Park teaches a display device, comprising:
a light-emitting module, comprising: N×M pixel modules arranged in a two-dimensional array wherein N and M are positive integers greater than or equal to 2 (see at least fig. 2 and [0061] “the display module 10 may include pixels in an M×N (M and N are integers of 2 or more) array, that is, a plurality of pixels arranged two dimensionally”);
wherein each of the pixel modules comprises a plurality of pixels and a driving circuit for controlling the plurality of pixels (see at least fig. 5 and [0094] “One micro pixel controller 130 may control two or more pixels P, .. a case in which one micro pixel controller 130 controls four pixels P is illustrated”),
each of the pixels comprises a plurality of light-emitting diodes (see at least fig. 2 and [0063] “The pixel P may include three sub-pixels SP(R), SP(G), and SP(B)”), and
the driving circuit is configured to apply a driving current to the light-emitting diodes in the pixel module (see at least [0114] “the pixel circuit 131P may output a driving current ID for driving the inorganic light-emitting element 120.”, [0123] “The display module 10 according to one embodiment may control the inorganic light-emitting element 120 by combining pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) control for controlling the amplitude of the driving current and pulse width modulation (PWM) control for controlling a pulse width of the driving current.”),
and a timing controller configured to generate a timing signal and a data signal to drive one of the pixel modules (see at least figs. 3-4: driver IC 200, main controller 300, timing controller 500, and [0082] “The image data and the control signal output from the main controller 300 may be transmitted to the timing controller 500.”).
Park does not directly teach wherein in a time period, a duty cycle of a working interval of the driving current is 1/J, and in the working interval, the driving current is J times an average driving current, and J is a positive integer equal to or greater than 2.
Yeh teaches wherein in a time period, a duty cycle of a working interval of the driving current is 1/J, and in the working interval, the driving current is J times an average driving current, and J is a positive integer equal to or greater than 2 (see at least [0003] “control the drive current to an average value (hereinafter referred to as “average current”) so that the average current corresponds to the expected brightness, … and to control the expected brightness by controlling the duty cycle of the LED during the driving period.” - note this is duty cycle = length of time that the LED is turned on during the driving period; [0005] “in one display period, the N rows of LEDs are sequentially driven, so the driving time of the LEDs of each row will be only one-N of the display period. .. Since the driving time of the LED is short, the pulse current signal must be increased in order to generate sufficient brightness.” - note this is driving time (on time) per LED row = 1/N of the total period, therefore this corresponds to a duty cycle of 1/N; and [0036] “the processing circuit 220 determines that the average current corresponding to the frame display signal Sd is 40 microamperes (2 mA is divided by 50). Then, the processing circuit 220 calculates that the driving duty cycle is 80% (because) according to the preset driving current value (for example, 50 uA, and 50×0.8=40).” - note this is average current = driving current x duty cycle. Therefore, Yeh teaches the claimed relationship in substance: duty cycle = 1/J, and driving current = J × average current).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to operate using Yeh’s taught relationship between duty cycle and driving current in order to control brightness under time-division driving conditions. Applying Yeh’s teaching to Park’s PWM-driven light-emitting module would have predictably resulted in: selecting a duty cycle corresponding to a fraction of the period (e.g., 1/J), and increasing the driving current proportionally (J×) to maintain the same average current (brightness), which is nothing more than the application of a known mathematical relationship to a known PWM-driven display system to achieve predictable brightness control. Such modification merely involves applying a known relationship (current–duty proportionality) to a known system (PWM-driven LEDs) to obtain predictable results (maintained brightness).
As to claim 15, Park teaches a driving method for a display device, comprising:
generating a timing signal and a data signal to a driven one of the N×M pixel modules in a two-dimensional array by a timing controller (see at least figs. 2-4, [0061] “the display module 10 may include pixels in an M×N (M and N are integers of 2 or more) array, that is, a plurality of pixels arranged two dimensionally”, and [0082] “The image data and the control signal output from the main controller 300 may be transmitted to the timing controller 500.”),
wherein each of the pixel modules comprises a plurality of pixels and a driving circuit for controlling the plurality of pixels (see at least fig. 5 and [0094] “One micro pixel controller 130 may control two or more pixels P, .. a case in which one micro pixel controller 130 controls four pixels P is illustrated”),
each of the pixels comprises a plurality of light-emitting diodes (see at least fig. 2 and [0063] “The pixel P may include three sub-pixels SP(R), SP(G), and SP(B)”), and
the driving circuit is configured to apply a driving current to the light-emitting diodes in the pixel module, and N and M are positive integers greater than or equal to 2, and applying a driving current to the light-emitting diodes in the corresponding pixel module by the driven one of the driving circuit (see at least figs. 2-5, [0061] “the display module 10 may include pixels in an M×N (M and N are integers of 2 or more) array, that is, a plurality of pixels arranged two dimensionally”, [0114] “the pixel circuit 131P may output a driving current ID for driving the inorganic light-emitting element 120.”, [0123] “The display module 10 according to one embodiment may control the inorganic light-emitting element 120 by combining pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) control for controlling the amplitude of the driving current and pulse width modulation (PWM) control for controlling a pulse width of the driving current.”).
Park does not directly teach wherein in a time period, a duty cycle of a working interval of the driving current is 1/J, and in the working interval, the driving current is J times an average driving current, and J is a positive integer equal to or greater than 2.
Yeh teaches wherein in a time period, a duty cycle of a working interval of the driving current is 1/J, and in the working interval, the driving current is J times an average driving current, and J is a positive integer equal to or greater than 2 (see at least [0003] “control the drive current to an average value (hereinafter referred to as “average current”) so that the average current corresponds to the expected brightness, … and to control the expected brightness by controlling the duty cycle of the LED during the driving period.” - note this is duty cycle = length of time that the LED is turned on during the driving period; [0005] “in one display period, the N rows of LEDs are sequentially driven, so the driving time of the LEDs of each row will be only one-N of the display period. .. Since the driving time of the LED is short, the pulse current signal must be increased in order to generate sufficient brightness.” - note this is driving time (on time) per LED row = 1/N of the total period, therefore this corresponds to a duty cycle of 1/N; and [0036] “the processing circuit 220 determines that the average current corresponding to the frame display signal Sd is 40 microamperes (2 mA is divided by 50). Then, the processing circuit 220 calculates that the driving duty cycle is 80% (because) according to the preset driving current value (for example, 50 uA, and 50×0.8=40).” - note this is average current = driving current x duty cycle. Therefore, Yeh teaches the claimed relationship in substance: duty cycle = 1/J, and driving current = J × average current).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to operate using Yeh’s taught relationship between duty cycle and driving current in order to control brightness under time-division driving conditions. Applying Yeh’s teaching to Park’s PWM-driven light-emitting module would have predictably resulted in: selecting a duty cycle corresponding to a fraction of the period (e.g., 1/J), and increasing the driving current proportionally (J×) to maintain the same average current (brightness), which is nothing more than the application of a known mathematical relationship to a known PWM-driven display system to achieve predictable brightness control. Such modification merely involves applying a known relationship (current–duty proportionality) to a known system (PWM-driven LEDs) to obtain predictable results (maintained brightness).
As to claim 3, the combination of Park and Yeh teach the light-emitting module according to claim 1 (see above rejection), wherein each of the pixels comprises at least three light-emitting diodes (see Park at least [0063] “The pixel P may include three sub-pixels SP(R), SP(G), and SP(B)”).
As to claim 9, the combination of Park and Yeh teach the display device according to claim 7 (see above rejection), wherein each of the pixels comprises at least three light-emitting diodes (see Park at least [0063] “The pixel P may include three sub-pixels SP(R), SP(G), and SP(B)”).
As to claim 13, the combination of Park and Yeh teach the display device according to claim 7 (see above rejection), further comprising: a plurality of timing signal lines connecting the timing controller with the light-emitting module, the timing signal lines configured to transmit the timing signals to the pixel modules; and a plurality of data signal lines connecting the timing controller with the light-emitting module, the data signal lines configured to transmit the data signals to the pixel modules (see Park at least figs. 3-4, [0082] “The image data and the control signal output from the main controller 300 may be transmitted to the timing controller 500.”, [0083] “The timing controller 500 may convert the image data transmitted from the main controller 300 into image data of a format that may be processed in a driver integrated circuit (IC) 200 (FIG. 4), and generate various control signals such as a timing control signal necessary for displaying the image data on the display panel.”, [0127] “The signal supplied from the driver IC 200 may be transmitted to the micro pixel controller 130 through a side surface line or a via hole line”).
As to claim 16, the combination of Park and Yeh teach the driving method for the display device according to claim 15 (see above rejection), wherein the light-emitting diodes are sub-millimeter light-emitting diodes or micro-light emitting diodes (see Park at least [0053] “a micro-LED having a short side length of about 100 μm”).
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (USPN 2022/0301498 A1) in view of Yeh et al. (USPN 2021/0043129 A1), further in view of Song et al. (TW 202418262 A).
As to claim 2, the combination of Park and Yeh teach the light-emitting module according to claim 1 (see above rejection).
Park and Yeh do not directly teach wherein each of the pixel module further comprises: a package body packaging the light-emitting diodes of the pixels and the driving circuit.
Song teaches wherein each of the pixel module further comprises: a package body packaging the light-emitting diodes of the pixels and the driving circuit (see at least [0015] “ample space can be ensured by mounting multiple display pixels and pixel driver circuits on a single substrate and embedding the pixel driver circuits within the substrate.”, [0365] “pixel driving devices… have a pixel driving circuit MPD built into the insulation layer of the driving substrate.”, [0397]–[0398] “multiple light-emitting diodes (LEDs)… can be attached to the areas corresponding to the upper wiring.”, and [0401] “a POD (Pixels On Driver) structure can be realized in which the pixel driver circuit MPD is embedded in the display substrate and multiple light-emitting elements R, G, B are arranged on the upper part of the substrate.” – note “package body” is single substrate / POD structure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the integrated structure of Song into the pixel modules of Park with the calculations of Yeh in order to reduce wiring complexity, as expressly taught by Song (see Song at least [0301] “advantages such as simplified electrical wiring, improved assembly, reduced manufacturing costs, and reduced complexity.”). Such modification would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, namely integrating LEDs and driver circuitry into a single packaged unit.
As to claim 8, the combination of Park and Yeh teach the display device according to claim 7 (see above rejection).
Park and Yeh do not directly teach wherein each of the pixel module further comprises: a package body packaging the light-emitting diodes of the pixels and the driving circuit.
Song teaches wherein each of the pixel module further comprises: a package body packaging the light-emitting diodes of the pixels and the driving circuit (see at least [0015] “ample space can be ensured by mounting multiple display pixels and pixel driver circuits on a single substrate and embedding the pixel driver circuits within the substrate.”, [0365] “pixel driving devices… have a pixel driving circuit MPD built into the insulation layer of the driving substrate.”, [0397]–[0398] “multiple light-emitting diodes (LEDs)… can be attached to the areas corresponding to the upper wiring.”, and [0401] “a POD (Pixels On Driver) structure can be realized in which the pixel driver circuit MPD is embedded in the display substrate and multiple light-emitting elements R, G, B are arranged on the upper part of the substrate.” – note “package body” is single substrate / POD structure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the integrated structure of Song into the pixel modules of Park with the calculations of Yeh in order to reduce wiring complexity, as expressly taught by Song (see Song at least [0301] “advantages such as simplified electrical wiring, improved assembly, reduced manufacturing costs, and reduced complexity.”). Such modification would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, namely integrating LEDs and driver circuitry into a single packaged unit.
As to claim 14, the combination of Park, Yeh and Song teach the display device according to claim 8 (see above rejection), wherein the timing signal and the data signal from the timing controller are transmitted to the pixel module (see Park at least figs. 3-4: driver IC 200, main controller 300, timing controller 500, and [0082] “The image data and the control signal output from the main controller 300 may be transmitted to the timing controller 500.”; and Song at least [0208] “column terminals… connected to the column lines… row terminals… connected to the row lines”, [0370] “the pixel driver circuit (MPD) receives row signals by driving the modulation data of multiple light-emitting elements (R, G, B) through one electrical contact with the display substrate, and receives column signals by driving the clock signals”, [0400] “multiple solder balls or bumps can be formed on the lower surface of the display substrate”, and [0406] “input pad solder balls or bumps corresponding to the input signals can be formed on the display substrate” – note solder balls / bumps formed on lower surface are “pads on a bottom surface” and signals received via terminals and connections are signal transmission through pads).
Claims 4–6, 10–12, and 17–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (USPN 2022/0301498 A1) in view of Yeh et al. (USPN 2021/0043129 A1), further in view of Cheng et al. (USPN 2022/0093037 A1).
As to claim 4, the combination of Park and Yeh teach the light-emitting module according to claim 1 (see above rejection).
Park and Yeh do not directly teach wherein the pixels in each of the pixel modules are divided into J pixel blocks.
Cheng teaches wherein the pixels in each of the pixel modules are divided into J pixel blocks (see at least [0009] “selectively enabling… different channel subset among a plurality of channel subsets of the plurality of driving channels to drive corresponding display unit”, [0010] “each channel subset of the plurality of channel subsets includes two or more driving channels”, [0089] “channels CH1–CH9 may be divided into three channel subsets…”, and [0145]–[0147] “the number of driving channels is divided into K subsets… One channel subset is enabled in each sub-frame period” – note channel subsets correspond directly to pixel blocks because each driving channel drives a corresponding display unit (pixel) - therefore, dividing channels into subsets inherently divides the corresponding pixels into groups).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dividing pixels into J pixel blocks as taught by Cheng into Park and Yeh in order to reduce coupling interference, improve brightness uniformity, and reduce flicker (see Cheng [0005], [0007], [0097], and [0122]). This yields nothing more than the predictable result of improved display performance.
As to claim 5, the combination of Park, Yeh and Cheng teach the light-emitting module according to claim 4 (see above rejection), wherein the J pixel blocks are driven by the driving current at different timings (see Yeh at least [0005]: sequential driving of rows; and Cheng [0009] “in each sub-frame subset… different channel subset… to drive corresponding display unit”, [0016]–[0017] “enabling, in a first sub-frame subset,.. the first channel subset… and… in a second sub-frame subset, ..the second channel subset”, [0018] “only one channel subset in said each sub-frame subset is enabled”, and [0146]–[0147] “One channel subset is enabled in each sub-frame period”).
As to claim 6, the combination of Park, Yeh and Cheng teach the light-emitting module according to claim 5 (see above rejection), wherein the driving current for driving the pixels in each of the pixel blocks is J times the average driving current (see Yeh at least [0003], [0005], [0036]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Park and Yeh teach the display device according to claim 7 (see above rejection).
Park and Yeh do not directly teach wherein the pixels in the pixel module are divided into J pixel blocks.
Cheng teaches wherein the pixels in the pixel module are divided into J pixel blocks (see at least [0009] “selectively enabling… different channel subset among a plurality of channel subsets of the plurality of driving channels to drive corresponding display unit”, [0010] “each channel subset of the plurality of channel subsets includes two or more driving channels”, [0089] “channels CH1–CH9 may be divided into three channel subsets…”, and [0145]–[0147] “the number of driving channels is divided into K subsets… One channel subset is enabled in each sub-frame period” – note channel subsets correspond directly to pixel blocks because each driving channel drives a corresponding display unit (pixel) - therefore, dividing channels into subsets inherently divides the corresponding pixels into groups).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dividing pixels into J pixel blocks as taught by Cheng into Park and Yeh in order to reduce coupling interference, improve brightness uniformity, and reduce flicker (see Cheng [0005], [0007], [0097], and [0122]). This yields nothing more than the predictable result of improved display performance.
As to claim 11, the combination of Park, Yeh and Cheng teach the display device according to claim 10 (see above rejection), wherein the J pixel blocks are driven by the driving current at different timings (see Yeh at least [0005]: sequential driving of rows; and Cheng [0009] “in each sub-frame subset… different channel subset… to drive corresponding display unit”, [0016]–[0017] “enabling, in a first sub-frame subset,.. the first channel subset… and… in a second sub-frame subset, ..the second channel subset”, [0018] “only one channel subset in said each sub-frame subset is enabled”, and [0146]–[0147] “One channel subset is enabled in each sub-frame period”).
As to claim 12, the combination of Park, Yeh and Cheng teach the display device according to claim 11 (see above rejection), wherein the driving current for driving the pixels in each of the pixel blocks is J times the average driving current (see Yeh at least [0003], [0005], [0036]).
As to claim 17, the combination of Park and Yeh teach the driving method for the display device according to claim 15 (see above rejection).
Park and Yeh do not directly teach wherein the pixels in the pixel module are divided into J pixel blocks, and the J pixel blocks are driven by the driving current at different timings.
Cheng teaches wherein the pixels in the pixel module are divided into J pixel blocks (see at least [0009] “selectively enabling… different channel subset among a plurality of channel subsets of the plurality of driving channels to drive corresponding display unit”, [0010] “each channel subset of the plurality of channel subsets includes two or more driving channels”, [0089] “channels CH1–CH9 may be divided into three channel subsets…”, and [0145]–[0147] “the number of driving channels is divided into K subsets… One channel subset is enabled in each sub-frame period” – note channel subsets correspond directly to pixel blocks because each driving channel drives a corresponding display unit (pixel) - therefore, dividing channels into subsets inherently divides the corresponding pixels into groups),
and the J pixel blocks are driven by the driving current at different timings (see at least [0009] “in each sub-frame subset… different channel subset… to drive corresponding display unit”, [0016]–[0017] “enabling, in a first sub-frame subset,.. the first channel subset… and… in a second sub-frame subset, ..the second channel subset”, [0018] “only one channel subset in said each sub-frame subset is enabled”, and [0146]–[0147] “One channel subset is enabled in each sub-frame period”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dividing pixels into J pixel blocks driving them at different times as taught by Cheng into Park and Yeh in order to reduce coupling interference, improve brightness uniformity, and reduce flicker (see Cheng [0005], [0007], [0097], and [0122]). This yields nothing more than the predictable result of improved display performance.
As to claim 18, the combination of Park, Yeh and Cheng teach the driving method for the display device according to claim 17 (see above rejection), wherein the driving current for driving the pixels in each of the pixel blocks is J times the average driving current (see Yeh at least [0003], [0005], [0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L ZUBAJLO whose telephone number is (571)270-1551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, KE XIAO can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/JENNIFER L ZUBAJLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2627 4/23/2026
Prosecution Insights