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
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 05/07/2026 (“A...”), in which: claims 1, 4 – 5, 8 – 9, and 11 – 12 are amended; no new claims are added; no claims are canceled; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 - 15, wherein claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration, are currently pending an Office Action on the merits as follows.
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 4 – 5, 8 – 9, and 11 – 12 such that the previous objections to these claims, due to minor informalities, is moot. Examiner withdraws objections to claims 4 – 5, 8 – 9, and 11 – 12 due to minor informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 14 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 8 – 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozeki et al. (US 20190198674 A1).
Regarding independent claim 8, Ozeki teaches a display device comprising:
an oxide semiconductor layer (Ozeki teaches in [0037] the switching element Tr is a thin film transistor with an n-channel metal oxide semiconductor. Also see [0046], wherein semiconductor layer 71 is considered to be an n-channel metal oxide semiconductor. See Fig. 8);
a gate electrode (Fig. 8; first gate electrode 74A) facing the oxide semiconductor layer (Fig. 8);
a gate insulating layer (Fig. 8; second insulating layer 92) between the oxide semiconductor layer and the gate electrode (Fig. 8);
a light-shielding layer (Fig. 8; light-shielding layer 81A) overlapping part of the oxide semiconductor layer in a plan view (Fig. 7);
a first insulating layer (Fig. 8; fourth insulating layer 94) covering the oxide semiconductor layer (Fig. 8), the gate electrode (Fig. 8), the first insulating layer including a first opening (Fig. 8; contact hole H3) overlapping the light- shielding layer in a plan view (Figs. 7 and 8); and
a transparent conductive layer (Fig. 8; second connection 22c of pixel electrode 22. See translucent material taught in [0029]) arranged above the first insulating layer and connected to the oxide semiconductor layer via the first opening (Fig. 8),
wherein
the first insulating layer has a region overlapping the gate electrode in a plan view (Figs. 7 and 8),
the first opening does not overlap the gate electrode in a plan view (Figs. 7 and 8),
the transparent conductive layer extends in a first direction (Fig. 7; Y-axis) from an overlapping area overlapping the light-shielding layer (Figs. 7 and 8 shows the transparent conductive layer in the overlapping area overlapping light-shielding layer 81A) in a plan view beyond an end portion of the light-shielding layer (Figs. 7 and 8),
the overlapping area, the end portion of the light-shielding layer, and an end portion of the transparent conductive layer are arranged in the first direction in this order (Figs. 7 and 8), in a plan view, and
the end portion of the transparent conductive layer is positioned between an end portion of the first opening and the end portion of the light-shielding layer in a plan view, the end portion of the first opening being a farthest portion from the gate electrode (Fig. 7).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Ozeki, further in view of Kim, teach the display device according to claim 8, further comprising
a second insulating layer (Fig. 8; insulating layer 24) covering a top surface of the first insulating layer and the first opening (Fig. 8),
wherein
the transparent conductive layer is in contact with a side wall of the first opening in an area overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view (Figs. 7 and 8), and
the second insulating layer covers the transparent conductive layer in an area overlapping the light-shielding layer (Fig. 8) and covers the side wall of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view (Figs. 7 and 8).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Ozeki, further in view of Kim, teach the display device according to claim 9, further comprising
a pixel electrode (Fig. 8; pixel electrode 22) arranged above the second insulating layer (Fig. 8), wherein
the second insulating layer has a second opening (Fig. 8; see in the second insulating layer at contact hole H3) achieving the transparent conductive layer (Fig. 8), and
the pixel electrode is connected to the transparent conductive layer via the second opening (Fig. 8).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Ozeki teaches the display device according to claim 8, wherein
the light-shielding layer protrudes in the first direction in an area overlapping the first opening in a plan view (Figs. 7 and 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 20190198674 A1), further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220093721 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ozeki teaches a display device comprising:
an oxide semiconductor layer (Ozeki teaches in [0037] the switching element Tr is a thin film transistor with an n-channel metal oxide semiconductor. Also see [0046], wherein semiconductor layer 71 is considered to be an n-channel metal oxide semiconductor. See Fig. 8);
a gate electrode (Fig. 8; first gate electrode 74A) facing the oxide semiconductor layer (Fig. 8);
a gate insulating layer (Fig. 8; second insulating layer 92) between the oxide semiconductor layer and the gate electrode (Fig. 8);
a light-shielding layer (Fig. 8; light-shielding layer 81A) overlapping part of the oxide semiconductor layer in a plan view (Fig. 7);
a first insulating layer (Fig. 8; fourth insulating layer 94) covering the oxide semiconductor layer (Fig. 8), the gate electrode (Fig. 8), and the gate insulating layer (Fig. 8), the first insulating layer including a first opening (Fig. 8; contact hole H3) including a first side wall (Fig. 8; sidewall of contact hole H3 overlapping the light-shielding layer 81A) overlapping the light-shielding layer (Figs. 7 and 8) and a second side wall (Fig. 8; sidewall of contact hole H3 not overlapping the light-shielding layer 81A) not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view (Figs. 7 and 8); and
a transparent conductive layer (Fig. 8; second connection 22c of pixel electrode 22. See translucent material taught in [0029]) arranged above the first insulating layer and connected to the oxide semiconductor layer via the first opening (Fig. 8),
wherein
the first insulating layer is provided above the gate electrode (Fig. 8),
the first insulating layer has a region overlapping the gate electrode in a plan view (Figs. 7 and 8),
the first opening does not overlap the gate electrode in a plan view (Fig. 7), and
in a cross-sectional view, an entirety of the first side wall faces the transparent conductive layer (Fig. 8), and ...
However, Ozeki remains silent regarding the display device wherein the first insulating layer includes:
… the second side wall has a region not facing the transparent conductive layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a second electrode 190 that is a transparent conductive layer ([0036]); wherein Kim’s transparent conductive layer is disposed in a first insulating layer (Fig. 4F; passivation structure 1400) including a first opening (Fig. 4F; open region 140H) connecting to TFT wiring/circuitry/components (at least [0040]). Further, Kim’s transparent conductive layer includes the relationship to the first opening wherein the second side wall (Fig. 4F; side wall of pen region 140H associated with undercut UC) has a region not facing the transparent conductive layer (Fig. 4F). Kim teaches that display devices have gradually developed to satisfy requirements of slimness and flexibility ([0097]); therefore, it would be obvious to modify Ozeki’s second connection 22c, i.e., the transparent conductive layer, to have segmented portions such that less stress is applied to Ozeki’s transparent conductive layer. This would be obvious an obvious solution to prevent cracks in Ozeki’s second connection 22c when making Ozeki’s device more flexible.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the Ozeki’s display device to include the second side wall has a region not facing the transparent conductive layer, as disclosed by Kim, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s transparent conductive layer is comparable to Ozeki’s transparent conductive layer because they are both transparent conductive layers extending from a pixel to make a connection to a transistor. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ozeki’s display device to include the second side wall has a region not facing the transparent conductive layer, as disclosed by Kim, with the predictable result of making the connection more suitable for a flexible display device.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Ozeki, further in view of Kim, teach the display device according to claim 1; further comprising
a second insulating layer (Fig. 8; insulating layer 24) covering a top surface of the first insulating layer and the first opening (Fig. 8),
wherein
the transparent conductive layer is in connect with the first side wall (Fig. 8), and
the second insulating layer covers the transparent conductive layer and the second side wall (Fig. 8).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Ozeki, further in view of Kim, teach the display device according to claim 2, further comprising
a pixel electrode (Fig. 8; pixel electrode 22) arranged above the second insulating layer (Fig. 8), wherein
the second insulating layer has a second opening (Fig. 8; see in the second insulating layer at contact hole H3) achieving the transparent conductive layer (Fig. 8), and
the pixel electrode is connected to the transparent conductive layer via the second opening (Fig. 8).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 20190198674 A1), further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220093721 A1) and Kim (US 6407782 B1; Kim2).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Ozeki, further in view of Kim, teach the display device according to claim 1; however, Ozeki remains silent wherein
the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim2 teaches a thin film transistor structure wherein active layer 207 extends past the light shielding layer 203 such that connection electrodes may be in contact with the active layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view. This thin film transistor structure (TFT) may be readily used to modify the display device structure of Ozeki, further in view of Kim, to yield the structure wherein the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Ozeki, further in view of Kim, to include Kim2’s transistor structure wherein the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim2’s transistor structure is comparable to the transistor structure yielded through the combination of Ozeki, further in view of Kim, because they disclose a connective via for a an opening exposing the active layer wherein the opening partially overlaps a light shielding layer below the transistor structure. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Ozeki, further in view of Kim, to include Kim2’s transistor structure wherein the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view with the predictable result of forming the light shielding layer only partially covering the active layer of the transistor structure.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 20190198674 A1), further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220093721 A1), and Kawabuchi et al. (US 20170329176 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Ozeki, further in view of Kim, teach the display device according to claim 2, wherein the second insulating layer comprises: …
the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the first side wall (Fig. 8), …
However, Ozeki remains silent regarding the materials of their second insulating layer comprising:
a barrier layer having a moisture barrier property; and a resin insulating layer arranged above the barrier layer, …
and the barrier layer covers the transparent conductive layer and the second side wall
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kawabuchi teaches a similar transistor structure for a display device wherein Kawabuchi teaches a second insulating layer (Fig. 1; insulating film 20). Kawabuchi teaches their insulating film 20 including a protective insulating film 5 and a flattening film 6. Kawabuchi’s protective insulating film 5is taught to protect against moisture ([0044]), and the flattening film is made from a resin material ([0045]). It would have been obvious to modify the display device of Ozeki, further in view of Kim, such that the second insulating layer includes a barrier layer having a moisture barrier property (Kawabuchi: Fig. 5; protective insulating film 5); and a resin insulating layer (Kawabuchi: Fig. 5; flattening film 6) arranged above the barrier layer (Kawabuchi: Fig. 5), and the barrier layer covers the transparent conductive layer and the second side wall (Kawabuchi: Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the second insulating layer of Ozeki, further in view of Kim, to include Kawabuchi’s barrier and resin layer structure, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kawabuchi’s barrier and resin layer structure is comparable to the layers above Kim’s first insulating layer (passivation structure 1400), i.e., inorganic encapsulation layers 310 and organic encapsulation layer 320 (Fig. 3), because of their similar placement, materials, and function. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second insulating layer of Ozeki, further in view of Kim, to include Kawabuchi’s barrier and resin layer structure with the predictable result of insulating the display device from moisture.
Claims 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 20190198674 A1), further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220093721 A1) and Na et al. (US 20140138772 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Ozeki, further in view of Kim, teach the display device according to claim 1; however, Ozeki remains silent wherein
the first opening overlaps the light-shielding layer in an area larger than half of the first opening in a plan view.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Na teaches a first light blocking member 124 that overlaps with one sidewall of the contact hole 166 and not the other sidewall of the contact hole 166, i.e., a first opening; wherein the first opening overlaps the light-shielding layer in an area larger than half of the first opening in a plan view (Fig. 1). Ozeki’s overlapping of the first opening and the light-shielding layer is at the sidewall which suggest a minimum overlap, wherein Na’s structure suggest a maximum overlap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Ozeki’s overlapping area to include an area larger than half of the first opening, as disclosed by Na, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Ozeki’s overlapping area to include an area larger than half of the first opening, as disclosed by Na, is implicitly provided by Ozeki and Kim, wherein Ozeki suggest a minimum overlap Na’s suggest a maximum overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Ozeki’s overlapping area to include an area larger than half of the first opening, as disclosed by Na, with the motivation of changing an aperture ratio of the contact holes. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of covering other portions of the device.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Ozeki, further in view of Kim, teach the display device according to claim 1; however, Ozeki remains silent wherein
the light-shielding layer protrudes in a direction from the first side wall toward the second side wall in an area overlapping the first opening in a plan view.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Na teaches a first light blocking member 124 that overlaps with one sidewall of the contact hole 166 and not the other sidewall of the contact hole 166, i.e., a first opening; wherein the light-shielding layer protrudes in a direction from the first side wall toward the second side wall in an area overlapping the first opening in a plan view (Fig. 1). Ozeki’s overlapping of the first opening and the light-shielding layer is at the sidewall which suggest a minimum overlap, wherein Na’s structure suggest a maximum overlap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Ozeki, further in view of Kim, to include an overlap range of the first opening and the light-shielding layer up to the second sidewall of the first opening, as disclosed by Na, such that the light-shielding layer protrudes in a direction from the first side wall toward the second side wall in an area overlapping the first opening in a plan view, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the light shielding layer’s placement relative to the transistor structure in Na’s disclosure is comparable to Ozeki’s light shielding layer’s placement relative to the transistor structure because the via connecting the pixel electrode and transistor overlaps the light shielding layer. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Ozeki, further in view of Kim, to include an overlap range of the first opening and the light-shielding layer up to the second sidewall of the first opening, as disclosed by Na, such that the light-shielding layer protrudes in a direction from the first side wall toward the second side wall in an area overlapping the first opening in a plan view with the predictable result of having the light shielding layer covering other portions of the device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 20190198674 A1), further in view of Kim (US 6407782 B1; Kim2).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Ozeki teaches the display device according to claim 8; however, Ozeki remains silent wherein
the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim2 teaches a thin film transistor structure wherein active layer 207 extends past the light shielding layer 203 such that connection electrodes may be in contact with the active layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view. This thin film transistor structure (TFT) may be readily used to modify the display device of Ozeki to yield the structure wherein the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Ozeki to include Kim2’s transistor structure wherein the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim2’s transistor structure is comparable to the transistor structure of Ozeki because both disclose a connective via for a transistor structure opening at the active layer wherein the opening partially overlaps a light shielding layer below the transistor structure. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Ozeki to include Kim2’s transistor structure wherein the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer exposed in a bottom portion of the first opening in an area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view with the predictable result of forming the light shielding layer only partially covering the active layer of the transistor structure.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 20190198674 A1), further in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 20170329176 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Ozeki teaches the display device according to claim 9, wherein the second insulating layer comprises: …
the transparent conductive layer is in contact with the side wall of the first opening in the area overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view (Fig. 8), …
However, Ozeki remains silent wherein the second insulating layer comprises:
a barrier layer having a moisture barrier property; and
a resin insulating layer arranged above the barrier layer, …
the barrier layer covers the transparent conductive layer in the area overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view, and covers the side wall of the first opening in the area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kawabuchi teaches a similar transistor structure for a display device wherein Kawabuchi teaches a second insulating layer (Fig. 5; insulating film 20). Kawabuchi teaches their insulating film 20 including a protective insulating film 5 and a flattening film 6. Kawabuchi’s protective insulating film 5 is taught to protect against moisture ([0044]), and the flattening film is made from a resin material ([0045]). It would have been obvious to modify the display device of Ozeki such that the second insulating layer includes a barrier layer having a moisture barrier property (Kawabuchi: Fig. 5; protective insulating film 5); and a resin insulating layer (Kawabuchi: Fig. 5; flattening film 6) arranged above the barrier layer (Kawabuchi: Fig. 5), and the barrier layer covers the transparent conductive layer in the area overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view, and covers the side wall of the first opening in the area not overlapping the light-shielding layer in a plan view (Kawabuchi: Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the second insulating layer of Ozeki to include Kawabuchi’s barrier and resin layer structure, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kawabuchi’s device circuitry is comparable to Kim’s device circuitry because of their structure. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the materials of the second insulating layer of Ozeki to include Kawabuchi’s barrier and resin layer structure materials with the predictable result of insulating the display device from moisture.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 20190198674 A1), further in view of Na et al. (US 20140138772 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Ozeki teaches the display device according to claim 8; however, Ozeki remains silent wherein
the first opening overlaps the light-shielding layer in an area larger than half of the first opening in a plan view.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Na teaches a first light blocking member 124 that overlaps with one sidewall of the contact hole 166 and not the other sidewall of the contact hole 166, i.e., a first opening; wherein the first opening overlaps the light-shielding layer in an area larger than half of the first opening in a plan view (Fig. 1). Ozeki’s overlapping of the first opening and the light-shielding layer is at the sidewall which suggest a minimum overlap, wherein Na’s structure suggest a maximum overlap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Ozeki’s overlapping area to include an area larger than half of the first opening, as disclosed by Na, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Ozeki’s overlapping area to include an area larger than half of the first opening, as disclosed by Na, is implicitly provided by Ozeki and Kim, wherein Ozeki suggest a minimum overlap Na’s suggest a maximum overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Ozeki’s overlapping area to include an area larger than half of the first opening, as disclosed by Na, with the motivation of changing an aperture ratio of the contact holes. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of covering other portions of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170243898 A1 previously relied on.
US 20230168550 A1 teaches a similar transistor (Fig. 6B) for a display device.
US 20230161210 A1 teaches similar transistor structure embodiments for a display device (Figs. 3, 15, 17, and 19. Also see [0159]).
US 20140061632 A1 teaches a similar opening wherein a sidewall only partially overlaps a light blocking layer.
US 20140042429 A1 teaches a similar opening wherein a sidewall only partially overlaps a light blocking layer.
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 MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights