DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 02/12/2026.
Currently, claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 12-20 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 are withdrawn.
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 Amendments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-17, and 20 have been considered.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to require that “the first light path changing layer is partially disposed between each of the plurality of driving transistors and the first electrode, and wherein the first electrode penetrates the first light path changing layer and is electrically connected to each of the plurality of driving transistors”. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the amended limitation of claim 1. This argument is not found persuasive because the amended limitation is obvious in view of the cited prior art. Park et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0387841, hereinafter “Park”) teaches a first electrode 221a (see Park Fig. 4) electrically connected to a thin film transistor TFTa. Kitahara et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0074473, hereinafter “Kitahara”) teaches a light path changing layer 160 (see Kitahara Fig. 8) directly underneath and in contact with their first electrode 110. Therefore, Park modified by Kitahara’s light path changing layer would be directly beneath and in contact with Park’s first electrode 221a. As it is not pertinent to the particulars of their invention, Kitahara is silent in regards to pixel driving circuitry. However, Park’s first electrode 221a is physically and electrically connected to the thin film transistor TFTa underneath the first electrode 221a in order for Park’s light emitting device to operate (Park ¶ [0070]). Because Park modified by Kitahara’s light path changing layer would be directly underneath Park’s first electrode 110, Park modified by Kitahara’s first electrode must either go around or go through Park modified by Kitahra’s light path changing layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park modified by Kitahara’s first electrode to penetrate through Park modified by Kitahara’s light path changing layer in order to connect to corresponding pixel driving circuitry.
Independent claim 9 has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of now cancelled dependent claims 10 and 11. Applicant argues that cited prior art Yue et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0208897) does not disclose any configuration corresponding any configuration corresponding to the plurality of transmissive area and therefore fails to teach or suggest that the optical sensor receives external light through the plurality of transmissive areas TA.
However, Park teaches a plurality of non-transmissive areas (Park Fig. 3, areas between TA) disposed between a plurality of transmissive areas (Park Fig. 3, TA) and that their optical sensor 40 (see Park Fig. 2) receives external light through the plurality of their transmissive areas TA (see Park Figs. 2-3). Yue does teach the toggling on and off of pixels in a second display area depending on the operation of a camera module in order to prevent stray light from affecting image shooting (see Yue ¶ [0080]). Park ¶ [0064] teaches that Park’s optical sensor can be a camera. Therefore, Park modified by Yue’s optical sensor would receive light through the plurality of Park’s transmissive areas and would be turned on and off depending on the operation of Park’s optical sensor in order to prevent stray light from affecting image shooting.
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 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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0367841) in view of KITAHARA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0074473) and further in view of KWAK et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0193749).
Regarding independent claim 1, Park teaches a display device (Figs.3 & 4) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 4, 100, ¶ [0058]) provided with a plurality of transmissive areas (Figs. 3 & 4, TA, ¶ [0056]);
a plurality of light emitting elements (Fig. 3, Pa, ¶ [0056]) having a first electrode (Fig. 4, 221a, ¶ [0110]) and a light emitting layer (Fig. 4, 222ab, ¶ [0115]) disposed between the plurality of transmissive areas;
a plurality of driving transistors (Fig. 4, TFTa, ¶ [0067]) connected to the plurality of light emitting elements;
a planarization layer (Fig. 4, 118, ¶ [0107]) disposed over the plurality of driving transistor; and
a bank (Fig. 4, 119, ¶ [0111]) covering an edge of the first electrode,
wherein the substrate further includes a light emission area (Fig. 4, area of 221a not covered by 119) defined by the bank (Fig. 4),
wherein the light emission area is spaced apart from the plurality of transmissive areas (Figs. 3 & 4),
wherein the plurality of light emitting elements further includes a second electrode (Fig. 4, 223a, ¶ [0116]) provided on the light emitting layer,
wherein the first electrode (Fig. 4, 221a is not in transmission area TA) is not provided in the plurality of transmissive areas,
However, Park does not explicitly teach a first light path changing layer disposed between the plurality of transmissive areas, changing a path of light directed from the light emitting layer toward the substrate,
wherein the first light path changing layer is disposed between the first electrode and the planarization layer,
wherein the light emitting layer is not provided in the plurality of transmissive areas,
wherein the second electrode is in contact with the planarization layer in each of the plurality of transmissive areas, and
wherein the first light path changing layer overlaps with the light emission area and the bank, and is non-overlapping with each of the plurality of transmissive areas,
wherein the first light path changing layer is partially disposed between each of the plurality of driving transistors and the first electrode, and
wherein the first electrode penetrates the first light path changing layer and is electrically connected to each of the plurality of driving transistors.
However, Kitahara is a pertinent art that teaches a first light path changing layer (Fig. 8, 160, ¶ [0039]) disposed between the plurality of transmissive areas (Fig. 8, 106, ¶ [0028]), changing a path of light (¶ [0039] teaches that 160 scatters the light emitted from light emitting unit 140) directed from the light emitting layer toward the substrate,
wherein the first light path changing layer is disposed between the first electrode and the planarization layer (Kitahara Fig. 8 teaches that the light path changing layer 160 is directly beneath and in contact with first electrode 110. Therefore, Park modified by Kitahara’s light path changing layer would be directly beneath Park’s first electrode 221a (Park Fig. 4) and would therefore fulfill this limitation),
wherein the first light path changing layer overlaps with the light emission area (Fig. 8, area of region 102 where first electrode 110 is not covered by insulating layer 150, ¶ [0036]) and the bank (Fig. 8, 150, ¶ [0034]), and is non-overlapping with each of the plurality of transmissive areas (Fig. 8, 160 overlaps with 102 and 150 but does not overlap with 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display device according to the teaching of Kitahara (Fig. 8) in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kitahara ¶ [0007]).
However, Park modified by Kitahara does not explicitly teach that the first light path changing layer is partially disposed between each of the plurality of driving transistors and the first electrode, and
wherein the first electrode penetrates the first light path changing layer and is electrically connected to each of the plurality of driving transistors the light emitting layer is not provided in the plurality of transmissive areas.
However, Park modified by Kitahara’s light path changing layer would be directly underneath and in contact with Park’s first electrode. As it is not pertinent to the particulars of their invention, Kitahara is silent in regards to pixel driving circuitry. Park’s first electrode 221a is physically and electrically connected to the thin film transistor TFTa underneath the first electrode 221a in order for Park’s light emitting device to operate (Park ¶ [0070]). Because Park modified by Kitahara’s light path changing layer would be directly underneath Park’s first electrode 110, Park modified by Kitahara’s first electrode must either go around or go through Park modified by Kitahra’s light path changing layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park modified by Kitahara’s first electrode to penetrate through Park modified by Kitahara’s light path changing layer in order to connect to corresponding pixel driving circuitry.
However, Park modified by Kitahara does not explicitly teach that the light emitting layer is not provided in the plurality of transmissive areas, and wherein the second electrode is in contact with the planarization layer in each of the plurality of transmissive areas.
However, Kwak is a pertinent art that teaches the light emitting layer (Fig. 9, 220’, ¶¶ [0158] & [0176]) is not provided in the plurality of transmissive areas (Figs. 9 & 11B, TA, ¶ [0177] teaches a transmission portion that includes a planarization layer and multiple insulating layers), and wherein the second electrode (Fig. 9, 230’, ¶¶ [0162] & [0176]) is in contact with the planarization layer (Fig. 9, 113, ¶ [0177]) in each of the plurality of transmissive areas (Fig. 9, a portion of electrode 230’ is in direct contact with the planarization layer 113 in transmission portion TA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park modified by Kitahara’s first electrode, organic layer, and transmissive area according to the teaching of Kwak (Fig. 9) in order to reduce manufacturing costs (Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak would at least not require a hole to be formed in Park’s planarization and insulation layers and would also require less organic light emitting material).
Regarding claim 2, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak teaches the display device of claim 1, and Kitahara teaches that the first light path changing layer (Fig. 8, 160, ¶ [0039]) is disposed between the first electrode (Fig. 8, 110, ¶ [0028]) and the substrate (Fig. 8, 100, ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the first light path changing layer (Kitahara Fig. 8, 160, ¶ [0040] teaches that 160 can have a refractive index of 2.2) has a refractive index higher than that of the planarization layer (Park Fig. 4, 118, ¶ [0107] teaches that 118 can be acryl. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that acryl has a refractive index of approximately 1.5).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0367841) in view of KITAHARA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0074473) and further in view of KWAK et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0193749) and further in view of KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0037414).
Regarding claim 5, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak teaches the display device of claim 1.
However, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak does not explicitly teach that the first light path changing layer includes a convex pattern that is convex toward the substrate from the first electrode (the Examiner notes that Kitahara’s optically functional layer can be a microlens array (Kitahara ¶ [0042])).
However, Kim is a pertinent art that teaches the first light path changing layer (Fig. 5, 250, ¶ [0092]) includes a convex pattern (Fig. 5) that is convex toward the substrate (Figs. 3 & 5, 210, ¶ [0082]) from the first electrode (Fig. 3, EL1, ¶ [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak’s light path changing layer to be a convex pattern according to the teaching of Kim (Figs. 3 & 5) in order to influence the path and direction of refracted light (Kim ¶ [0093]).
Regarding claim 6, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Kim teaches the display device of claim 5, and Kim teaches that the convex pattern (Fig. 5, 250, ¶ [0092]) is provided as a plural number (Fig. 5) for each of the plurality of light emitting elements (Fig. 3, layers above and connected to TR1, TR2, and TR3, ¶ [0051] ).
Claims 9, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0367841) in view of KITAHARA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0074473) and further in view of KWAK et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0193749) and further in view of YUE et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0208897).
Regarding independent claim 9, Park teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 1) to display an image; and
an optical sensor (Fig. 2, 40, ¶ [0064]) disposed below the display panel, wherein the display panel includes:
a substrate (Fig. 4, 100, ¶ [0058]) provided with a first display area (Figs. 3 & 4, DA1, ¶ [0056]) and a second display area (Figs.3 & 4, DA2, ¶ [0056]) at least partially overlapping with the optical sensor;
a plurality of first subpixels (Fig.3, Pm, ¶ [0056]) disposed in the first display area;
a plurality of second subpixels (Fig. 3, Pa, ¶ [0056]) disposed in the second display area.
wherein the substrate further includes a plurality of transmissive areas (Figs. 3 & 4, TA, ¶ [0056]) provided in the second display area,
wherein the light emitting element further includes:
a light emitting layer (Fig. 4, 222ab, ¶ [0115]) provided on the first electrode, and
a second electrode (Fig. 4, 223a, ¶ [0116]) provided on the light emitting layer,
wherein the first electrode is not provided in the plurality of transmissive areas (Fig. 4, 221a is not in transmission area TA),
wherein each of the plurality of second subpixels includes:
a bank (Fig. 4, 119, ¶ [0111]) covering an edge of the first electrode; and
a light emission area (Fig. 4, area of 221a not covered by 119) defined by the bank (Fig. 4),
wherein the light emission area is spaced apart from the plurality of transmissive areas (Fig. 4),
However, Park does not explicitly teach a first light path changing layer at least partially overlapping with each of the second subpixels and changing a path of light directed from the second subpixels toward the substrate,
wherein the first light path changing layer has one surface in contact with a first electrode of a light emitting element of each of the second subpixels, and another surface in contact with a planarization layer made of an organic material;
wherein the light emitting layer is not provided in the plurality of transmissive areas, and
wherein the second electrode is in contact with the planarization layer in each of the plurality of transmissive areas,
wherein the first light path changing layer overlaps with the light emission area and the bank, and is non-overlapping with each of the plurality of transmissive areas.
However, Kitahara is a pertinent art that teaches a first light path changing layer (Fig. 8, 160, ¶ [0039]) at least partially overlapping with each of the second subpixels (Fig. 8, 140, ¶ [0030]) and changing a path of light (¶ [0039] teaches that 160 scatters the light emitted from light emitting unit 140) directed from the second subpixels toward the substrate (Fig. 8, 100, ¶ [0029]),
wherein the first light path changing layer has one surface in contact with a first electrode of a light emitting element of each of the second subpixels (Each of Park’s first electrodes would be modified according to the teaching of Kitahara Fig. 8 and would therefore fulfill this limitation),
and another surface in contact with a planarization layer made of an organic material (Kitahara Fig. 8 teaches that the light path changing layer 160 is directly beneath and in contact with first electrode 110 (Kitahara ¶ [0028]). Therefore, Park modified by Kitahara’s light path changing layer would be directly beneath and in contact with the bottom surface of Park’s first electrode 221a (Park Fig. 4) and a surface of Park’s organic planarization layer (Park Fig. 4, 118, ¶ [0107]). Therefore, Park modified by Kitahara would fulfill this limitation);
wherein the first light path changing layer overlaps with the light emission area (Fig. 8, area of region 102 where first electrode 110 is not covered by insulating layer 150, ¶ [0036]) and the bank (Fig. 8, 150, ¶ [0034]), and is non-overlapping with each of the plurality of transmissive areas (Fig. 8, 160 overlaps with 102 and 150 but does not overlap with 106),
wherein the second display area (Figs.3 & 4, DA2, ¶ [0056]) includes the plurality of transmissive areas (Figs. 3 & 4, TA, ¶ [0056]) and a plurality of non-transmissive areas (Fig. 3, areas in between TA) disposed between the plurality of transmissive areas, and each of the plurality of second subpixels (Fig. 3, Pa, ¶ [0056]) is disposed in each of the plurality of non-transmissive areas,
wherein the optical sensor receives external light through the plurality of transmissive areas (¶¶ [0064]-[0065] teaches that Park’s optical sensor 50 receives light transmitted through transmission areas TA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s display device according to the teaching of Kitahara (Fig. 8) in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kitahara ¶ [0007]).
However, Park modified by Kitahara does not explicitly teach that
wherein the light emitting layer is not provided in the plurality of transmissive areas, and
wherein the second electrode is in contact with the planarization layer in each of the plurality of transmissive areas, and
wherein the second subpixels are turned off so that an image is not displayed on the second display area when an operation of the optical sensor is turned on, and the second subpixels are turned on so that an image is displayed on the second display area when the operation of the optical sensor is turned off.
However, Kwak is a pertinent art that teaches the light emitting layer (Fig. 9, 220’, ¶¶ [0158] & [0176]) is not provided in the plurality of transmissive areas (Figs. 9 & 11B, TA, ¶ [0177] teaches a transmission portion that includes a planarization layer and multiple insulating layers), and wherein the second electrode (Fig. 9, 230’, ¶¶ [0162] & [0176]) is in contact with the planarization layer (Fig. 9, 113, ¶ [0177]) in each of the plurality of transmissive areas (Fig. 9, a portion of electrode 230’ is in direct contact with the planarization layer 113 in transmission portion TA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park modified by Kitahara’s first electrode, organic layer, and transmissive area according to the teaching of Kwak (Fig. 9) in order to reduce manufacturing costs (Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak would at least not require a hole to be formed in Park’s planarization and insulation layers and would also require less organic light emitting material).
However, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak does not explicitly teach that the second subpixels are turned off so that an image is not displayed on the second display area when an operation of the optical sensor is turned on, and the second subpixels are turned on so that an image is displayed on the second display area when the operation of the optical sensor is turned off.
However, Yue is a pertinent art that teaches the second subpixels are turned off so that an image is not displayed on the second display area (Fig. 1, 120, ¶ [0059]) when an operation of the optical sensor (Fig. 1, 200, ¶ [0059]) is turned on, and the second subpixels are turned on so that an image is displayed on the second display area when the operation of the optical sensor is turned off (¶ [0080] teaches that pixels in the under screen camera area can be turned on and off depending on the operation of the camera module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park modified by Kitahara’s display device according to the teaching of Yue (Fig. 1) in order to prevent stray light from affecting image shooting (Yue ¶ [0080]).
Regarding claim 12, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue teaches the display device of claim 9, wherein the first light path changing layer (Kitahara Fig. 8, 160, ¶ [0039]) is disposed between light emitting elements (Kitahara Fig. 8, 120, ¶ [0032]) of the second subpixels and the optical sensor (Kitahara Fig. 8 teaches that the light path changing layer 160 is directly beneath and in contact with first electrode 110 (Kitahara ¶ [0028]). Therefore, Park modified by Kitahara’s light path changing layer would be directly beneath and in contact with the bottom surface of Park’s first electrode 221a (Park Fig. 4) and a surface of Park’s organic planarization layer (Park Fig. 4, 118, ¶ [0107]). Therefore, Park modified by Kitahara would fulfill this limitation).
Regarding claim 17, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue teaches the display device of claim 9, wherein the first light path changing layer has a refractive index (Kitahara Fig. 8, 160, ¶ [0040] teaches that 160 can have a refractive index of 2.2) higher than that of the planarization layer (Park Fig. 4, 118, ¶ [0107] teaches that 118 can be acryl. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that acryl has a refractive index of approximately 1.5).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0367841) in view of KITAHARA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0074473) and further in view of KWAK et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0193749) and further in view of YUE et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0208897) and further in view of KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0037414).
Regarding claim 13, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue teaches the display device of claim 9.
However, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue does not explicitly teach that the first light path changing layer includes a convex pattern that is convex toward the optical sensor from a light emitting element of each of the second sub pixels (the Examiner notes that Kitahara’s optically functional layer can be a microlens array (Kitahara ¶ [0042])).
However, Kim is a pertinent art that teaches the first light path changing layer (Fig. 5, 250, ¶ [0092]) includes a convex pattern (Fig. 5) that is convex toward the optical sensor (Figs. 3 & 5, 210, ¶ [0082]) from a light emitting element (Figs. 3 & 5, OL, ¶ [0055]) of each of the second sub pixels (Fig. 3, layers above and connected to TR1, TR2, and TR3, ¶ [0051] ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue’s light path changing layer to be a convex pattern according to the teaching of Kim (Figs. 3 & 5) in order to influence the path and direction of refracted light (Kim ¶ [0093]).
Regarding claim 14, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue modified by Kim teaches the display device of claim 13,and Kim teaches that the convex pattern (Fig. 5, 250, ¶ [0092]) is provided as a plural number (Fig. 5) for each of the second subpixels.
Regarding claim 15, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue modified by Kim teaches the display device of claim 13, and Park teaches that the second subpixel (Fig. 6A, P2, ¶ [0057]) includes a first color subpixel (Fig. 6A, P2r, ¶ [0106]) emitting a first color light and a second color subpixel (Fig. 6A, P2g, ¶ [0106]) emitting a second color light.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0367841) in view of KITAHARA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0074473) and further in view of KWAK et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0193749) and further in view of YUE et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0208897) and further in view of KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0037414) and further in view of NAMATA et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0045859).
Regarding claim 16, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue modified by Kim teaches the display device of claim 15.
However, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue modified by Kim does not explicitly teach that the convex pattern overlapping with the first color subpixel has a curvature different from that of a convex pattern provided to overlap with the second color subpixel.
However, Namata is a pertinent art that teaches the convex pattern (Fig. 3, 41, ¶ [0059]) overlapping with the first color subpixel (Fig. 3, portion of 41 below R region, ¶ [0003]) has a curvature different from that of a convex pattern (Fig. 3, portion of 41 below G region, ¶ [0003]) provided to overlap with the second color subpixel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Kim’s display device according to the teaching of Namata (Fig. 3) in order to improve color reproductivity (Namata ¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 20, Park modified by Kitahara modified by Kwak modified by Yue modified by Kim modified by Namata teaches the display device of claim 16, and Kim teaches that the first light path changing layer (Figs. 3 & 5, ¶ [0092] teaches a high refractive index layer in sub pixels that output red, green, and blue light (Fig. 3, LA1 + LA2 + LA3, ¶ [0050]) that are curved) has a curvature in the first color subpixel and the second color subpixel.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights