DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s Remarks pages) assert that the prior art documents of record US 2020003576 A1 (Hack et al), US 20180033839 A1 (Hack 2 et al), and US 20090295283 A1 (Kim et al) do not include the limitation “wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light from a first emissive layer” since they respectively include multiple blue emission layers, a blue anode contact shared between multiple blue subpixels, or a single pixel which has one blue emission layer. However, these assertions are not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding Hack et al, the scope of the limitation “wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light from a first emissive layer” does not preclude the inclusion of more than one emissive layer that emits blue light, it merely requires that a first emissive layer is used by the claimed two or more emissive regions to emit blue light, which is present in the disclosure of Hack et al. This is also present in the disclosure of Hack 2 et al, and Hack 2 further includes that a single type of blue emissive layer is used for all of the subpixels (¶ [0062]); the shared blue anode contact of Hack 2 pointed out by Applicant is not pertinent to the consideration of the limitation “wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light from a first emissive layer”. Regarding Kim et al, a pair of unit pixels 40 was considered to constitute a metapixel, so the feature “emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel” is present due to two instances of the blue emissive layer 14B are present. For similar reasons as with Hack et al and Hack 2 et al, Kim et al also falls within the scope of the claimed invention to satisfy the limitation “wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light from a first emissive layer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent publication US 2020003576 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack).
Regarding claim 1, Hack discloses a device (the device of FIG. 5 ¶ [0032]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display (FIG. 5’s device is an OLED device ¶ [0032]) comprising a plurality of metapixels (annotated FIG. 5 below, a metapixel is formed by a cluster of 4 pixels which all share a common deep blue subpixel ¶ [0075]), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (annotated FIG. 5, a total of 17 emissive regions are present in each metapixel: four for each of red, yellow, green, and light blue, and one deep blue ¶ [0074-0076]) that are configured by at least one selected from the group (in this case, option (i)) consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (FIG. 5, the emissive regions of the four light blue subpixels and the deep blue subpixel all emit blue light in combination ¶ [0074-0076]), wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light from a first emissive layer (FIG. 5, a top left light blue subpixel of the subpixels emits blue light from a first emissive layer ¶ [0071-0075]), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIG. 5, the metapixel includes four green subpixels which each are addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIG. 5, the metapixel includes four red subpixels which each are addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]).
PNG
media_image1.png
834
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that at least some of the emissive regions of each metapixel are configured to emit blue light (FIG. 5, four light blue subpixels and the deep blue subpixel all emit blue light ¶ [0074-0076]), and border neighboring metapixels in the OLED display (annotated FIG. 5 above, the light blue subpixels line the borders of the metapixels).
Regarding claim 3, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above, and further discloses that the at least some emissive regions of the each metapixel that border neighboring metapixels are adjacent to emissive regions of the neighboring metapixels that are configured to emit blue light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel’s borders are lined by the light blue subpixels which emit blue light ¶ [0074-0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that a border perimeter of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light (FIG. 5, border perimeters of the light blue subpixels) is longer than a border perimeter of any of the sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light (FIG. 5, because the surface areas of the light blue subpixels wholly overlap the surfaces areas of the red and green subpixels and then further widen past them, the border perimeters of the light blue subpixels are inherently longer than the border perimeters of any of the red or green subpixels).
Regarding claim 5, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels further comprises: more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit yellow light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four yellow subpixels which are each addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the emissive regions configured to emit blue light are at least one selected from the group consisting of: greater than 15%, greater than 25%, greater than 50%, and greater than 75% of a region that surrounds the sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light (FIG. 5, a sub-region of the light blue subpixels surrounds both the red and green subpixels; therefore, the entire light blue and deep blue subpixels’ emissive region is inherently greater than 100% of its own sub-region which surrounds the red and green subpixels).
Regarding claim 8, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that a border perimeter of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light are at least one selected from the group consisting of: greater than 15%, greater than 25%, greater than 50%, and greater than 75% of a region that surrounds the sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light (FIG. 5, the total border perimeter of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light is 100% of itself, since a region of the light blue emissive regions surrounds the subpixels that emit green and/or red light).
Regarding claim 9, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel comprises four or more sub-pixels to emit green light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four green subpixels) and four or more sub-pixels to emit red light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four red subpixels).
Regarding claim 10, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel comprises two or more sub-pixels to emit red light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four red subpixels), and four or more sub-pixels to emit green light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four green subpixels).
Regarding claim 11, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel comprises two or more sub-pixels to emit green light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four green subpixels), and four or more sub-pixels to emit red light (annotated FIG. 5 above, each metapixel includes four red subpixels).
Regarding claim 14, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel is based on one unpatterned OLED deposition (a light blue emitting unpatterned OLED deposition ¶ [0076]), and at least one selected from the group consisting of: color altering layers, and downconversion films (downconversion films including photoemissive quantum dots ¶ [0076]) are disposed on the unpatterned OLED deposition and are configured to produce light of other colors from the light output from the unpatterned OLED deposition (¶ [0076] states that red and green light may be output by means of the quantum dots).
Regarding claim 15, Hack discloses a consumer electronic device (¶ [0013, 0045] teaches that the disclosed invention of Hack may be applied in a consumer product and/or electronic component module) comprising: a device (the device of FIG. 5 ¶ [0032]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display (FIG. 5’s device is an OLED device ¶ [0032]) comprising a plurality of metapixels (annotated FIG. 5 above, a metapixel is formed by a cluster of 4 pixels which all share a common deep blue subpixel ¶ [0075]), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (annotated FIG. 5, a total of 17 emissive regions are present in each metapixel: four for each of red, yellow, green, and light blue, and one deep blue ¶ [0074-0076]) that are configured by at least one selected from the group (in this case, option (i)) consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (FIG. 5, the emissive regions of the four light blue subpixels and the deep blue subpixel all emit blue light in combination ¶ [0074-0076]) wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light from a first emissive layer (FIG. 5, a top left light blue subpixel of the subpixels emits blue light from a first emissive layer ¶ [0071-0075]), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIG. 5, the metapixel includes four green subpixels which each are addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIG. 5, the metapixel includes four red subpixels which each are addressed by their own TFT and data line ¶ [0075]).
Regarding claim 16, Hack discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and further discloses that the device is at least one type selected from the group consisting of: a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a cell phone, tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display that is less than 2 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video walls comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign (many of the claimed options are taught in Hack ¶ [0045] as applications of their invention).
Claims 1, 12, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent publication US 20180033839 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack 2).
Regarding claim 1, Hack 2 discloses a device (the device of FIGS. 3A-4 ¶ [0024-0025, 0059]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display (the device of FIGS. 3A-4 is an OLED display ¶ [0025]) comprising a plurality of metapixels (annotated FIG. 4 below, the device includes metapixels), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (annotated FIG. 4, four blue subpixels 410 in the metapixel ¶ [0059]) that are configured by at least one (in this case, option (i)) selected from the group consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (FIG. 4, each of the four blue subpixels 410 emit blue light ¶ [0059]), wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light from a first emissive layer (a blue emissive layer is used for the blue subpixels ¶ [0060-0064]), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIGS. 3A-4, green subpixels 430 are independently addressable ¶ [0057-0059]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIGS. 3A-4, red subpixels 420 are independently addressable ¶ [0057-0059]).
PNG
media_image2.png
459
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel that includes the emissive regions configured to output blue light are within a plane of blue sub-pixels (FIGS. 3A-4 and annotated 4 above, the metapixels are within a same plane), and wherein the emissive regions are deposited in two or more deposition operations (FIGS. 3A-3H, yellow emissive layer 315 and blue emissive layer 360 were deposited in two deposition operations ¶ [0050-0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Hack 2 discloses a consumer electronic device (the device of Hack 2 can be applied as a consumer electronic device ¶ [0040]) comprising: a device (the device of FIGS. 3A-4 ¶ [0024-0025, 0059]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display (the device of FIGS. 3A-4 is an OLED display ¶ [0025]) comprising a plurality of metapixels (annotated FIG. 4 above, the device includes metapixels), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (annotated FIG. 4, four blue subpixels 410 in the metapixel ¶ [0059]) that are configured by at least one (in this case, option (i)) selected from the group consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (FIG. 4, each of the four blue subpixels 410 emit blue light ¶ [0059]), wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light from a first emissive layer (a blue emissive layer is used for the blue subpixels ¶ [0060-0064]), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIGS. 3A-4, green subpixels 430 are independently addressable ¶ [0057-0059]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIGS. 3A-4, red subpixels 420 are independently addressable ¶ [0057-0059]).
Regarding claim 19, Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the two or more sets of emissive regions emit the same color blue light (the same blue emissive layer is used for all blue subpixels ¶ [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and further discloses that the two or more sets of emissive regions emit the same color blue light (the same blue emissive layer is used for all blue subpixels ¶ [0062]).
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent publication US 20090295283 A1 (Kim et al hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a device (the device of FIGS. 1 and 3 ¶ [0032-0034, 0053]) comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) display comprising a plurality of metapixels (FIG. 3, a pair of unit pixels 40 may constitute a metapixel ¶ [0053]), each metapixel of the plurality of metapixels comprising: two or more sets of emissive regions (FIG. 3, two instances of blue light transmission area 30B in the metapixel ¶ [0055-0057]) that are configured by at least one (in this case, option (i)) selected from the group consisting of:
(i) to emit blue light that is a combination of light from the two or more sets of emissive regions that are configured to emit the blue light for that metapixel (blue light transmission area 30B in the two unit pixels of the metapixel both emit blue light ¶ [0057]), wherein the two or more emissive regions emit blue light from a first emissive layer (FIG. 3, a blue emission layer 14B of one of the two unit pixels 40 emits blue light ¶ [0053]), and
(ii) that are addressable by the same drive circuit, and
wherein the metapixel includes more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light (FIGS. 1 and 3, two green sub-pixels 40G of the metapixel ¶ [0051-0053]) and more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (FIGS. 1 and 3, two red sub-pixels 40G of the metapixel ¶ [0051-0053]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that each metapixel includes only two patterned OLED depositions (two patterned OLED depositions suffice to deposit emission layers 14B and 14Y, patterning being employed to ensure that each of layers 14B and 14Y are deposited in their respective regions as can be seen in FIGS. 1 and 3; ¶ [0009-0010, 0055]) that include a first emissive layer configured to emit blue light (FIG. 3, blue emission layer 14B ¶ [0053]) and a second emissive layer configured to emit yellow light (FIG. 3, yellow emission layer 14Y ¶ [0053]), wherein the device further comprises at least one color altering layer (FIG. 1, either of red light conversion region 30R or green light conversion region 30G ¶ [0055]) configured to emit at least one of green light, and red light based on a conversion of yellow light from the second emissive layer (FIGS. 1 and 3, yellow light from yellow emission layer 14Y is converted into red or green light by conversion regions 30R and 30G ¶ [0057]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication US 20200035761 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20190280055 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack 3).
Hack discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not explicitly state that an area of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light are at least one selected from the group consisting of: greater than 1.5 times, greater than 2 times, greater than 3 times, greater than 4 times, greater than 6 times, and greater than 8 times an emissive area of sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light. While ratios of surface areas for the light blue, deep blue, red, and green subpixels portrayed in FIG. 5 are ostensibly in agreement with the claimed limitation, the drawing was not stated to be to scale (¶ [0037]), and the area of the emissive region of the blue subpixels was not directly compared to an emissive area of the green or red subpixel, since that was not a parameter of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention.
However, Hack 3 discloses a display device comprising a metapixel (the embodiment of FIG. 25) wherein a blue light emitting region is significantly greater than an emissive area of sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light (FIG. 25, ¶ [0190]). Hack 3 also teaches that “the human eye typically has relatively poor spatial resolution in the blue region of the spectrum and thus is relatively insensitive to the luminance of the blue sub-pixel” (¶ [0190]), motivating increasing the size of the blue light emitting area relative to that of the other colored subpixels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the size of the emissive regions of each metapixel configured to emit blue light as said size influences how much blue light a human viewer’s eye will see. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an area of at least one selected from the group consisting of: greater than 1.5 times, greater than 2 times, greater than 3 times, greater than 4 times, greater than 6 times, and greater than 8 times an emissive area of sub-pixels configured to emit green light or red light, in order to achieve a suitable balance of light emission for the red, green, yellow, and blue emitted by the device of Hack (FIG. 5) to ensure the blue light is sufficient to account for human eye’s natural insensitivity to light of that color as taught by Hack 3 (¶ [0190]). (See MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed difference of size/area is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication US 20180033839 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack 2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20240251624 A1 (Wu et al hereinafter Wu).
Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the metapixel includes a non-emissive border (FIG. 3H, which has a cross-sectional view that is applicable to the device of FIG. 4, has non-emissive border areas between the subpixel electrodes 301-304 ¶ [0048, 0059]) that separates the emissive regions configured to emit the blue light from the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light and from the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (each emission region is defined by the subpixel electrodes 301-304, and the unlabeled border-gaps between the electrodes separate the emissive regions of each respective color subpixel ¶ [0048-0051, 0054]).
Hack 2 does not further disclose that the separation is by a distance between 10-50 µm, the scaling of that feature of the device not being of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention.
However, Wu discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 1 ¶ [0041]) wherein a non-emissive border (FIG. 1, unlabeled pixel defining layer between the RGB subpixels ¶ [0050]) between different colored subpixel emission areas (FIG. 1, RGB subpixels ¶ [0050]) separates the emission areas by a distance between 10-50 µm (the pixel defining layer can have a minimum width D of 10 µm ¶ [0050, 0092]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found such a configuration obvious as Wu has demonstrated such a separation allows for an aperture ratio of the subpixels to be improved (¶ [0092]).
Hack 2 and Wu both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Hack 2 in view of Wu to provide the separation between the claimed emissive regions and independently addressable subpixels by a distance between 10-50 µm, since such a separation allows for an aperture ratio of the subpixels to be improved as taught by Wu.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack 2 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wu.
Hack 2 discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and further discloses that the metapixel includes a non-emissive border (FIG. 3H, which has a cross-sectional view that is applicable to the device of FIG. 4, has non-emissive border areas between the subpixel electrodes 301-304 ¶ [0048, 0059]) that separates the emissive regions configured to emit the blue light from the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit green light and from the more than one independently addressable sub-pixel configured to emit red light (each emission region is defined by the subpixel electrodes 301-304, and the unlabeled border-gaps between the electrodes separate the emissive regions of each respective color subpixel ¶ [0048-0051, 0054]).
Hack 2 does not further disclose that the separation is by a distance between 10-50 µm, the scaling of that feature of the device not being of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention.
However, Wu discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 1 ¶ [0041]) wherein a non-emissive border (FIG. 1, unlabeled pixel defining layer between the RGB subpixels ¶ [0050]) between different colored subpixel emission areas (FIG. 1, RGB subpixels ¶ [0050]) separates the emission areas by a distance between 10-50 µm (the pixel defining layer can have a minimum width D of 10 µm ¶ [0050, 0092]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found such a configuration obvious as Wu has demonstrated such a separation allows for an aperture ratio of the subpixels to be improved (¶ [0092]).
Hack 2 and Wu both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Hack 2 in view of Wu to provide the separation between the claimed emissive regions and independently addressable subpixels by a distance between 10-50 µm, since such a separation allows for an aperture ratio of the subpixels to be improved as taught by Wu.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent publication US 20250359431 A1.
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 EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Gauthier can be reached at 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.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813