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 Arguments
Regarding claim 10 objection, applicant amendment has been fully considered. The amendment overcomes the objection; hence the objection is withdrawn for claim 10.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant first notes that claim 1 has been amended to recite (i) that the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area, and (ii) a width comparison between the first opening and the second openings. The office maintains that the applied combination teaches or renders obvious these features for the reasons below.
Applicant next explains that, in the instant figures, the light emitting elements are on the first area, the driver is on the second area, the bending area is between them, and that “image may not be displayed” on the bending area and the second area. However, claim 1 does not recite “image display” limitation (e.g., that images are not displayed in particular regions). Rather, the claim recites only that the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area. Park expressly teaches that the display panel includes a display area DP-DA and non-display area DP-NDA, distinguished by whether pixels are provided, and that the emission element is disposed on the display area DP-DA. Park also expressly teaches, in ¶ [0063], that “the bending area BA and the second area AA2 may be contained in the non-display area DP-NDA”. Thus, Park teaches the amended limitation that the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area.
Applicant further argues that the instant invention has a “first opening” of larger width under the bending area and “second openings” of smaller width in the first area adjacent the bending area. This argument is not commensurate with the amended claim language as quoted by Applicant, which recites that each second opening has a second width greater than the first width. Accordingly, Applicant’s “first opening larger / second openings smaller” discussion does not traverse the width limitation as actually recited.
Applicant further asserts that the support part “may be disposed below the second area AA2 where the driver is disposed”. This does not overcome the rejection because amended claim 1 does not require the support part to be disposed under, or to support, the driver/second area. The claim requires only “a support part which is disposed under the substrate”. Therefore, the arrangements in Applicant’s figures are not commensurate with the claim scope.
Applicant next contrasts Seo by stating Seo’s folding and non-folding regions (and additional areas) “may be display areas” and that openings are formed in areas adjacent the folding area. Even accepting Applicant’s characterization, it does not overcome the rejection because claim 1 does not require openings only in image non-display area, nor does it require that a “bending area” be a non-display image region. The rejection relies on Seo for teaching a support structure with opening groups positioned relative to folding/non-folding regions, and relies on Park for expressly teaching that the bending area is in a non-display region and lacks emission elements.
Applicant then argues that Seo does not define a first opening below a bending area that “does not display an image” disposed between a light emitting element region and a driver region, and that Seo does not define second openings in a first area adjacent such a bending area. These arguments introduce additional requirements that are not recited in claim 1. Claim 1 requires only that the first opening overlaps the bending area and that the plurality of second openings overlaps the first area.
Applicant also asserts that, in Seo openings of different sized may be defined in areas where the image is displayed, and therefore Seo differs from the claimed invention. This is not persuasive because the claim is not limited by whether openings are in “image display” vs. “image non-display” regions; and Seo expressly shows, in ¶ [0077], that opening-group geometry and spacing involves selectable width parameters (e.g., sub-opening groups spaced apart by a third width smaller than a second width and openings arranged with spacing), evidencing that width/spacing selection is a design parameter in the opening architecture. Park likewise teaches, in ¶ [0090], that a plurality of openings in a support overlapping the folding area improves flexibility, supporting that opening geometry is selected to achieve desired mechanical performance.
Applicant next presents a proposed overlay of Seo’s regions onto Park and concludes that openings would overlap a folding area that “display an image”. This proposed overlay does not rebut the applied combination. The rejection does not require mapping each named Seo sub-region onto Park; rather, it is sufficient that Seo teaches a support layer with opening groups and that Park teaches foldable architecture and explicitly teaches the bending area is in the non-display region (thus lacking emission elements). Further Seo states that forming opening groups in the folding area is merely an example and that opening groups may overlap non-folding areas (e.g., OPG1 overlapping NFA1).
Applicant additionally argues that Park’s support plate is not disposed under the second area AA2 where the driver is disposed, whereas the claimed support part may be under AA2. As noted above, amended claim 1 does not require the support part to extend under AA2 or the driver; therefore, this argument is not commensurate with the claim scope and does not overcome the rejection.
Hence, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite “wherein the first opening has a first width and each of the plurality of second openings has a second width greater than the first width”. This is inconsistent with the specification and drawings. For the purpose of examination, this limitation of claim 1 and claim 14 is interpreted as “wherein the first opening has a first width and each of the plurality of second openings has a second width less than the first width”.
Dependent claims 2-13 inherit all limitations of claim 1, hence rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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, 4, 5, 7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20210397218 A1) in view of Park (US 20210280806 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 1 (Currently amended), Seo discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate (display panel in display module DM) including a first area (Seo, Fig 3, 1AA/NFA1), a second area (Seo, Fig 3, 4AA/NF2), and a bending area between the first area and the second area (Seo, Fig 3, FA);
and a support part which is disposed under the substrate (Seo, Fig 3, support layer SL disposed under DM) and in which a first opening (Seo, OPG2) and a plurality of second openings (Seo, OPG1) are defined, wherein the first opening overlaps the bending area (Seo, Fig 3, ¶ [0073], OPG2 is formed in folding area FA), and the plurality of second openings overlaps the first area (Seo, ¶ [0073], OPG1 may overlap the first area NFA1),
Seo is silent regarding,
a light-emitting element disposed on the first area;
a driver disposed on the second area;
wherein the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area, and
wherein the first opening has a first width and each of the plurality of second openings has a second width greater than the first width.
However, Park teaches a foldable display module with first area AA1, bending area BA, second area AA2. Park teaches a light-emitting element disposed on the first area (Park, Fig 2, ¶ [0105], light emission element PX is in first area AA1); a driver disposed on the second area (Park, Fig 2, ¶ [0065], driver DDV on the second area AA2). Seo and Park teach flexible display device, hence both analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the support-opening layout of Seo with the light emitting /driver placement of Park in order to implement a conventional active -matrix OLED foldable architecture (driver IC off the active area and pixel on the first area) (Park, ¶ [0060]).
With respect to the limitation, “wherein the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area”, Park teaches, in ¶ [0060], that the display panel includes a display area DP-DA and a non-display area DP-NDA, and that the emission element is disposed on the display area DP-DA. Park further teaches, in ¶ [0062], that the bending area BA (and the second area AA2) may be contained in the non-display area DP-NDA. Therefore, Park renders obvious that the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area BA.
With respect to the limitation, wherein the first opening has a first width and each of the plurality of second openings has a second width greater than the first width, Seo teaches, in ¶ [0013], that each opening group includes a plurality of openings, and that each of the openings may have a rectangular shape (i.e., each opening inherently has a width dimension in plan view). Seo further, in ¶ [0072], teaches that the opening-group layout and related geometry utilize width parameters (e.g., a first width D1, a second width D2, and a third width D3) in configuring the second/opening architecture. Further, Park also teaches, in ¶ [0090], that a plurality of openings OP may be defined in a supporter PLT in an area overlapping a folding area, and that flexibility is improved by the opening OP. Park also teaches, in ¶ [0096], that a cover plate may support the portion of the supporter PLT in which the openings are defined and prevent deformation when pressure is applied. Accordingly, Park evidences that the geometry (including width/size) of openings in a support structure is a routine design parameter selected to balance (i) flexibility/compliance and (ii) resistance to deformation. In view of Seo’s opening-group disclosure and Park’s teachings regarding openings used to tune flexibility and avoid deformation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the relative widths of the first and second openings as a result-effective variable, to obtain predictable balance between support/impact-mitigation and fold/bend durability consistent with the purposes of the support-opening architecture in Seo and the foldable display structure of Park.
Re: Claim 4 (Original), Seo and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Park further discloses,
wherein the support part is directly attached to the substrate (Park, Fig 2B, ¶¶ [0071], [0091] teaches the under-panel support assembly (including PPL, CVL, PLT, SCV, SUP) disposed below DM and teaches direct attachment of that support assembly to the substrate by a fifth adhesive layer AL5 between the display module DM and the panel protection layer PPL. PPL is part of the support part since it protects/supports the panel and is the top layer of the below-panel support assembly).
Re: Claim 5 (Original), Seo and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Park further discloses,
wherein the bending area is bent such that the second area is disposed under the first area (Park, Fig 5, ¶ [0124], the bending area BA may be bent so that the second area AA2 is disposed below the first area AA1).
Re: Claim 7 (Original), Seo and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Seo further discloses,
wherein the plurality of second openings is arranged in a first direction and extend in a second direction crossing the first direction (Seo, Fig 3, Seo teaches each opening group OPG1/OPG2 includes sub-opening groups arranged in a second direction (DR2), and each sub-opening group includes openings arranged in a first direction (DR1); each opening is rectangular with long side parallel to DR1, i.e., openings extend along DR1),
and wherein the support part includes a plurality of support bars separated from each other by the plurality of second openings (Seo, Fig 3, Seo teaches the elongate land portions of the support layers (i.e., the sub-support layer S-SL1) remaining between adjacent rectangular openings constitute support bars of the support part- they are elongate, separated from each other by the plurality of openings, thus support bars) and overlapping the first area (Seo, Fig 3, S-SL1 overlaps the first area NFA1).
Re: Claim 12 (Original), Seo and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Park further discloses,
further comprising: an auxiliary adhesive layer disposed between the first area and the support part (Park, Fig 2B, Park teaches using distinct adhesive layers (AL5-AL11, including AL5 located between DM (which is in first area) and the support PLT along the stack path).
Claims 2-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20210397218 A1) in view of Park (US 20210280806 A1), further in view of Ha (US 20210036069 A1).
Re: Claim 2 (Original), Seo and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Both Seo and Park are silent regarding,
further comprising: a resin layer disposed in each of the plurality of second openings.
However, Ha teaches a resin layer disposed in each of the plurality of second openings (Ha Fig 9A, ¶ [0185], [0188], teaches filling second opening OP2 of the support member BOSS with a second fixing member FXM2 that is a resin, and interposed between the display module and the component beneath).
Seo, Park and Ha teach flexible display device, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ha's resin-in-opening teaching to Seo's support in view of Park having plurality of second openings, and to dispose a resin layer in each opening, in order to improve a signal transmission characteristic and a fingerprint sensing capability of the fingerprint sensor (Ha, ¶ [0192]).
Re: Claim 3 (Original), Seo, Park and Ha disclose all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends.
Ha further discloses,
wherein the resin layer includes a first surface facing the substrate and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the resin layer (Ha, Fig 9A, 9B, ¶¶ [0184]- [0187], Ha teaches resin FXM2 filling the support opening and coupling the lower surface of the display module DM (i.e, substate) to the fingerprint sensor FPS. Thus, the upper/first surface of the resin faces the substrate (DM/panel) and the opposite/lower surface faces the component (FPS) within opening OP2),
wherein the support part includes a first surface facing the substrate and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the support part (Ha, Fig 9A, ¶ [0150], support part BOSS is bonded to the lower surface of DM (its upper/first surface facing the substrate) and is bonded to the upper surface of the first rigid plate MTL1 on the opposite side (its lower/second surface)), and
wherein the second surface of the resin layer is closer to the substrate than the second surface of the support part (¶ [0185], FXM2 is disposed between DM and FPS, BOSS is bonded to MTL1. The resin's lower/second surface lies above the BOSS-MTL1 interface and therefore closer to the substrate DM than the support part's (BOSS) second surface which is bonded to MTL1).
Re: Claim 9 (Original), Seo and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Both Seo and Park are silent regarding,
wherein the support part includes a surface facing the substrate and including: a first partial surface adjacent to the first opening; and a second partial surface disposed around the first partial surface, and wherein the first partial surface is disposed at a different height from a height of the second partial surface.
However, Ha teaches wherein the support part includes a surface facing the substrate (Ha, Fig 11A, ¶ [0202], Ha teaches support member BOSS_1 disposed beneath the display module DM; its DM-facing top surface (including both the inner ledge and surrounding region) contacts the lower surface of DM)
and including: a first partial surface adjacent to the first opening (Fig 11A, ¶ [0155], Ha teaches that the support member includes its own opening OP2 and a component e.g., may be disposed within OP2- i.e., an opening in the support. In Fig 11A, the inner DM-facing ledge of the support BOSS_1 that borders the opening region is the first partial surface adjacent to the support's opening OP2);
and a second partial surface disposed around the first partial surface (Ha Fig 11A, Ha teaches an outer DM-facing region of the support that surrounds the inner ledge, i.e., second partial surface disposed around the first), and
wherein the first partial surface is disposed at a different height from a height of the second partial surface (Fig 11A shows a step/level difference on the support's DM-facing side: the inner ledge adjacent to the opening is lower than the outer surrounding region (two distinct levels). Thus, the first partial surface is at different height from the second partial surface).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt Ha's stepped DM-facing surface around the support opening in Seo's support layout in view of Park in order to stably support the display module over to the opening and prevent or reduce deformation (Ha, ¶ [0198]).
Re: Claim 10 (Currently amended), Seo, Park and Ha disclose all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends.
Ha further teaches,
wherein the support part includes a first surface facing the substrate (Ha, Fig 7, Fig 11A, teaches the support's DM-facing top surface (BOT) faces/contacts the substrate (DM)) and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the support part (Fig 7, Ha teaches the opposite (bottom) surface of the support is bonded to the rigid plate beneath e.g., BDP/BIL/CP), and
wherein a gap between the first partial surface and the second surface of the support part is gradually decreased toward the first opening (Ha, Fig 7, ¶ [0155], Ha teaches a rigid-plate connection portion (CP) that is inclined upward towards the opening region. Because the support's bottom sits on this inclined CP, the perpendicular distance (thickness) between the first partial surface (inner DM-facing ledge adjacent to OP2) and the bottom surface of the support continuously (gradually) decreases as one moves towards the support opening -i.e., the gap is gradually decreased towards the first opening).
Re: Claim 11 (Original), Seo, Park and Ha disclose all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends.
Ha further teaches,
wherein the substrate contacts the first partial surface (Ha teaches that the support's DM-facing top surface (BOT) contacts the lower surface of the display module DM. In Fig 11A, the first partial surface is the inner top ledge of the support (BOSS_1) adjacent to the support opening OP2 on the DM-facing side. Because Ha states that the DM-facing top of the support (which includes both the inner ledge and the surrounding region) contacts the DM, it follows that the substrate contacts the first partial surface (the inner ledge)).
Claim(s) 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20210397218 A1) in view of Park (US 20210280806 A1) and further in view of Huang (US 20240015902 A1).
Re: Claim 6 (Original), Seo and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Both Seo and Park are silent regarding,
wherein the first area is rolled and unrolled.
However, Huang teaches wherein the first area is rolled and unrolled. Huang teaches, in abstract, a support plate with a rolling region and a foldable display screen in which the panel includes a rolling portion that corresponds to the rolling region. Thus, the portion of panel (first area) over the rolling region is rolled/unrolled, i.e., the display region is the portion rolled and unrolled.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the well know roll/unroll mechanism of a flexible display taught by Huang in Seo's foldable stack in order to achieve those predictable mechanical benefits and ability to recover from deformations (Huang, ¶ [0027]).
Re: Claim 8 (Original), Seo and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Both Seo and Park are silent regarding,
wherein the plurality of second openings includes: a plurality of first sub-openings arranged in an hth row where h is a natural number (Huang Fig 3-5, ¶ [0013], teaches first openings 11 each comprising of two first sub-openings 111, first sub-openings in any two adjacent rows are distributed in a staggered manner, the first sub-openings in odd-numbered rows are aligned with each other and the first sub-openings in even-numbered rows are aligned, i.e., 111 are row-wise arranged (row exists and are indexed-odd/even), satisfying "arranged in an hth row");
and a plurality of second sub-openings arranged in an (h+1) th row and staggered with respect to the plurality of first sub-openings (Huang further defines row spacing D between second sub-openings 112 in two adjacent rows (i.e., 112 are also row-wise arranged, with adjacent rows defined). 112 are placed between the pair of 111 within each opening unit and, together with the adjacent-row staggering of 111, yields a row of 112 that is offset (staggered) with respect to the row of 111 in the same array).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt Huang’s staggered pattern in the Seo/Park support in order to achieve more uniform distribution of stress received by the support plate during bending, and prevent the stress from being concentrated in a certain place (Huang, ¶ [0049]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20210397218 A1) in view of Park (US 20210280806 A1) and further in view of Jung (US 20170084635 A1).
Re: Claim 13 (Original), Seo and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 12 on which this claim depends.
Both Seo and Park are silent regarding,
wherein the auxiliary adhesive layer includes amorphous silicon or aluminum oxide.
However, Jung teaches (Jung, ¶ [0032]) the display device may include the adhesive layer including aluminum oxide disposed on the base substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Jung’s taught aluminum oxide as the material for auxiliary adhesive layer of Park in order to increasing an adhesion strength between a base substrate and an insulation layer (Jung, ¶ [0010]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20210280806 A1) in view of Seo (US 20210397218 A1) further in view of Sim (US 20210408445 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 14 (Currently amended), Park discloses an electronic device comprising a display device which provides an image (Park, ¶ [0054], display device DD generated images), the display device comprising:
a substrate (Park, Fig 4, display panel in display module DM) including a first area (Park, Fig 4, AA1), a second area (Fig 4, AA2), and a bending area between the first area and the second area (Fig 4, BA);
a pixel disposed on the first area (Park, Fig 2, ¶ [0105], light emission element PX is in first area AA1);
a driver disposed on the second area (Park, Fig 2, ¶ [0065], driver DDV on the second area AA2); and
a support part which is disposed under the substrate (Park, Fig 2B, supporter PLT disposed under DM) and in which a first opening overlapping the bending area is defined (opening OA overlaps folding (bending) area FA), the support part including: a surface facing the substrate (Park, Fig 2B, top surface of PLT facing the display module DM) and including:
a first partial surface adjacent to the first opening (Park, Fig 2B, the annular region of PLT immediately bordering OP is a first partial surface); and
a second partial surface around the first partial surface (Park, Fig 2B, remaining surface area of PLT that surrounds the annular border region is the second partial surface around the first);
wherein the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area (Park teaches, in ¶ [0060], that the display panel includes a display area DP-DA and a non-display area DP-NDA, and that the emission element is disposed on the display area DP-DA. Park further teaches, in ¶ [0062], that the bending area BA (and the second area AA2) may be contained in the non-display area DP-NDA. Therefore, Park renders obvious that the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area BA).
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the first opening has a first width and each of the plurality of second openings has a second width greater than the first width”, Seo teaches, in ¶ [0013], that each opening group includes a plurality of openings, and that each of the openings may have a rectangular shape (i.e., each opening inherently has a width dimension in plan view). Seo further, in ¶ [0072], teaches that the opening-group layout and related geometry utilize width parameters (e.g., a first width D1, a second width D2, and a third width D3) in configuring the second/opening architecture. Further, Park also teaches, in ¶ [0090], that a plurality of openings OP may be defined in a supporter PLT in an area overlapping a folding area, and that flexibility is improved by the opening OP. Park also teaches, in ¶ [0096], that a cover plate may support the portion of the supporter PLT in which the openings are defined and prevent deformation when pressure is applied. Accordingly, Park evidences that the geometry (including width/size) of openings in a support structure is a routine design parameter selected to balance (i) flexibility/compliance and (ii) resistance to deformation. In view of Seo’s opening-group disclosure and Park’s teachings regarding openings used to tune flexibility and avoid deformation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the relative widths of the first and second openings as a result-effective variable, to obtain predictable balance between support/impact-mitigation and fold/bend durability consistent with the purposes of the support-opening architecture in Seo and the foldable display structure of Park.
Park is silent regarding,
wherein the first partial surface of the support part is inclined with respect to the second partial surface around the first partial surface.
However, Sim teaches the first partial surface of the support part is inclined with respect to the second partial surface around the first partial surface. Sim, in ¶ [0018], teaches a top surface of the first support facing the first extension part may have a first inclined surface and a top surface of the second support facing the second extension part may have a second inclined surface in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sim’s inclination geometry to the first partial surface, i.e., the supporter's top surface adjacent to the opening of Park's structure in order to reduce deformation of the folding area, which is the purpose of the inclined surface geometry of Sim (Sim, ¶ [0234]).
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 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 BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-4149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:30am-7:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898