DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/4/2025 has been entered.
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 39 and 47 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.
Regarding claims 39 and 47, the limitation “the first electrode is formed only in the first area” and “the first electrode is not formed in the second area,” do not appear to have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, the there is no disclosure of first electrode being formed “only in” or “not formed in” the first area.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34-45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “when viewed from overhead” is unclear because it appears to be a conditional limitation. Accordingly, it is unclear if, in the instance that the device is not viewed from overhead, if the claimed invention requires any of the associated features.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “forming a first electrode of an OLED stack in at least the first area of the substrate,” is unclear as to what is required by “forming…in…the first area of the substrate” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the layer is in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “forming an insulating layer in the second area…of the substrate,” is unclear as to what is required by “forming…in the second area…of the substrate” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the layer is in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “forming at least one organic layer of the OLED stack for light emission over the first electrode in at least the first area,” is unclear as to what is required by “forming…in…the first area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the layer is in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “forming a second electrode of the OLED stack over the at least one organic layer so that the OLED stack is created in the first area,” is unclear as to what is required by “created in the first area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the layers are in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “forming an encapsulation layer over the second electrode in the first area,” is unclear as to what element(s) are required to be “in the first area,” i.e. the encapsulation layer and/or the second electrode. It is further unclear as to what is required by “in the first area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the layers are in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “forming an encapsulation layer…over the insulating layer in the second area,” is unclear as to what element(s) are required to be “in the second area,” i.e. the encapsulation layer and/or the insulating layer. It is further unclear as to what is required by “in the second area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the layers are in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “the area of the pass-through hole” is unclear because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “a pass-through hole” is unclear as to if it is the same “a pass-through hole” recited in the preamble.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “forming a pass-through hole with cut-edges through the encapsulation layer and the insulating layer in the second area,” is unclear as to what element(s) is/are required to be “in the second area,” i.e. the pass through hole, the insulating layer, and/or the cut-edges.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “the pass-through hole is located so that the remaining OLED panel in the second area completely surrounds the pass-through hole,” is unclear as to how the “remaining OLED panel” is related to the previously recited elements. Specifically, the claim is drawn to making an “OLED panel,” which would be understood to indicate that the final product resulting from the method is an “OLED panel.” However, no intermediate stage “OLED panel” has been recited in the body of the claim, nor has the claim clearly recited any step involving removing a portion of an “OLED panel” or intermediate stage “OLED panel” which would be understood to result in a “remaining OLED panel.” Additionally, since the preamble indicates that the claim is drawn to a method of making an “OLED panel with a pass-through hole,” it is unclear how the OLED panel can completely surround the pass-through hole if the pass-through hole is recited as a portion of the OLED panel. Lastly, it is unclear as to what is required by “completely surrounds.” Specifically, “completely” would be understood to require being surrounded on all sides three dimensionally, however it is not clear how there could be a pass-through hole which is surrounded by the OLED panel on all sides.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “the remaining insulating layer” is unclear as to what is required by the limitation. Specifically, the claim has not clearly recited any step involving removing a portion of the insulating layer which would be understood to result in a “remaining insulating layer.”
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “the remaining insulating layer in the second area provides at least part of the encapsulation to the OLED stack in the first area along the cut-edges of the pass-through hole,” is unclear as to how “the encapsulation to the OLED stack” is related to the previously recited elements. Specifically, the claim previously recites an “encapsulation layer,” and the preamble recites the “OLED panel” is fully encapsulated, however there is not a previous recitation of encapsulation of the OLED stack which provides proper antecedent basis for the limitation. It is further unclear as to what element(s) are required to be “in the first area along the cut-edges, i.e. the encapsulation and/or the OLED stack. If the latter, it is unclear as to how “the OLED stack in the first area” is related to the steps of forming the layers of the OLED stack “in at least the first area.” Additionally, it is unclear as to how the element(s) can be “in the first area along the cut-edges,” since the cut-edges are understood to be spaced from the first area. Lastly, it is unclear as to what is required by “in the first area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the element(s) are in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 34, the limitations “the first (second) area of the OLED panel,” are unclear as to how they are related to the previously recited first area and the second area of the substrate.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “the at least one organic layer and the second electrode are formed over the insulating layer in the second area as well as over the first electrode in the first area,” is unclear as to what element(s) are required to be in the second area and as to what element(s) are required to be in the first area. Additionally, it is unclear as to what is required by “in the first (second) area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the element(s) are in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 36, the limitation “the at least one organic layer and the second electrode in the second area” is unclear as to if the at least one organic layer is also required to be in the second area.
Regarding claim 37, the limitation “the OLED stack, which has internal layers of a first electrode, at least one organic layer and a second electrode, in the first area” is unclear as to how the recited elements are related to the first electrode, the at least one organic layer and the second electrode of claim 34. It is further unclear as to what elements are required to be in the first area. Additionally, it is unclear as to what is required by “in the first area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the element(s) are in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 37, the limitation “the encapsulation of the internal layers of the OLED stack in the first area along the side walls of the pass-through hole in the OLED panel is provided entirely by the insulating layer in the second area,” is unclear as to how the “encapsulation of the internal layers” is related to “an encapsulation layer,” “the encapsulation to the OLED stack,” and “a fully encapsulated OLED,” recited in claim 34. The limitation is further unclear as to what element(s) is required to be in the first area, i.e. the encapsulation and/or the internal layers of the OLED stack. It is further unclear as to what element(s) is required to be along the side walls. It is further unclear as to how the “sidewalls” are related to the “cut-edges” recited in claim 34. It is further unclear as to how the “encapsulation…in the first area” can be “entirely provided by the insulating layer in the second area.”
Regarding claim 39, the limitation “wherein the first electrode is formed only in the first area,” is unclear as to what the limitation requires. Specifically, it is unclear as to if applicant intends the limitation to require the feature to be present in the final structure, or if applicant intends the limitation to require the first electrode only ever be in the first area. As disclosed, the first electrode 61 is formed in both area 2 and area 7 (see Fig. 6A), and then patterned such that the OLED stack is only in area 2. It is therefore unclear what the limitation is intended to preclude and as to how the first electrode is formed in the manner claimed. Additionally, it is unclear as to what is required by “in the first area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the element(s) are in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “the edge of the first area” is unclear because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “the edges of the pass-through hole,” is unclear as to how it is related to the cut edges recited in claim 34.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “the minimum width of the second area running from the edges of the pass-through hole to the edge of the first area is at least 3 mm in all directions,” is unclear because it lacks proper antecedent basis. It is further unclear as to if “minimum width” is intended to require a width which is smallest relative to other widths or if it is intended to require that the width be at least 3mm. It is further unclear as to how a width can be “in all directions.” Additionally, claim 34 appears to require that the pass-through hole be in the second area, and therefore it is unclear as to how and a width of the second area can be a width excluding the pass-through hole (i.e. from the edges).
Regarding claim 43, the limitation “an emission area,” is unclear as to how it is related to the “first area of the OLED panel is light-emitting,” recited in claim 34.
Regarding claim 43, the limitation “the total emission surface,” is unclear because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “the first electrode is not formed in the second area,” is unclear as to what the limitation requires. Specifically, it is unclear as to if applicant intends the limitation to require the feature to be present in the final structure, or if applicant intends the limitation to require the first electrode to never be in the second area. As disclosed, the first electrode 61 is formed in both area 2 and area 7 (see Fig. 6A), and then patterned such that the OLED stack is not in area 7. It is therefore unclear what the limitation is intended to preclude and as to how the first electrode is formed in the manner claimed. Additionally, it is unclear as to what is required by “in the first area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the element(s) are in the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “the insulating layer is patterned to fill the second area,” it is unclear as to what is required by “fill the second area [of the substrate]” [emphasis added]. Specifically, it is unclear how the element(s) are filling the substrate, which is understood to be element 5 in the instant disclosure and shows no layers therein.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “when viewed from overhead” is unclear because it appears to be a conditional limitation. Accordingly, it is unclear if, in the instance that the device is not viewed from overhead, if the claimed invention requires any of the associated features.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “when viewed from overhead, a first area for light emission which completely surrounds a non- light emitting second area with a pass-through hole with cut edges, wherein the OLED panel includes: a substrate that extends throughout the first area and second areas to the cut edges of the pass-through hole; a first electrode over the substrate located at least in the first area; at least one organic layer for light emission located over the first electrode in the first area but is not present in the second area; a second electrode located over the at least one organic layer in the first area but is not present in the second area; an encapsulation layer located over the second electrode in the first area, over the second area and extends at least partially along the cut-edges of the pass-through hole; and where at least part of the encapsulation along the cut-edges of the pass-through hole is provided by an insulating layer,” is unclear as to which of the elements recited after “when viewed from overhead” are intended to be specified as a disposition “when viewed from overhead.” It is noted that the claim appears to require all of the subsequently recited elements, however some of the subsequently recited elements would not be visible “when viewed from overhead,” (e.g. a first electrode, as it would be covered by the other layers). It is further unclear as to if the body of the claim is also supposed to be interpreted as “when viewed from overhead.”
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “the encapsulation” (recited in both the preamble and the body of the claim) is unclear because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis and it is unclear as to how it is related to “a fully encapsulated OLED panel” and “an encapsulation layer.”
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “forming the first electrode on at least the first area of the substrate that has first and second areas,” is unclear as to how “the first area of the substrate” is related to the first and second areas of the OLED panel recited in the preamble. It is further unclear as to how it is related the “the substrate that has first and second areas.”
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “the first area completely surrounds the second area” is unclear as to if it is the first and second areas of the OLED panel or the first and second areas of the substrate.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “forming the insulating layer in the second area” is unclear if it is the second area of the substrate or the second area of the OLED panel.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “at least one organic layer for light emission,” is unclear as to how it is related to the at least one organic layer of the preamble.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “forming at least one organic layer for light emission over the first electrode in the first area and the second area,” is unclear as to if it is the first and second areas of the OLED panel or the first and second areas of the substrate.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “forming the second electrode over the at least one organic layer in the first area and the second area,” is unclear as to if it is the first and second areas of the OLED panel or the first and second areas of the substrate.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “removing the at least one organic layer and second electrode in the second area” is unclear if it is the second area of the substrate or the second area of the OLED panel.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “forming the encapsulation layer over the second electrode in the first area and over the second area,” is unclear as to if it is the first and second areas of the OLED panel or the first and second areas of the substrate.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “forming the pass-through hole with cut-edges through the second area,” is unclear if it is the second area of the substrate or the second area of the OLED panel.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “where the area of the pass-through hole is smaller than the second area of the substrate,” is unclear as to if it is smaller than the second area of the substrate prior to the pass-through hole being formed or if it is smaller than the second area of the substrate which remains after the pass-through hole is formed.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “the remaining second area,” is unclear if it is a remaining second area of the substrate or a remaining second area of the OLED panel. It is further unclear as to remaining after what removal step.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “so that the second area completely surrounds the pass-through hole,” (in the body of the claim) is unclear as to what is required by “completely surrounds.” Specifically, “completely” would be understood to require being surrounded on all sides three dimensionally, however it is not clear how there could be a pass-through hole which is surrounded by a “second area” on all sides.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Note that the claims have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 6-8) that “only” recited in claim 39 is supported because Fig. 4A-B show first electrode 61 is not formed in area 4 and Figs. 6D-E “clearly show the first electrode 61 is only present in the first light-emitting area 2.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, first electrode 61 is formed in the second area, as explicitly shown in Fig. 6A at least. Additionally, if applicant intends to specify a disposition of the final electrode structure, it is noted that the lack of the first electrode in area 4 in one cross section does not provide information as to where the first electrode is in other cross sections or as to where the first electrode is in other areas of the device. Accordingly, it cannot be ascertained from the disclosure that the first electrode is not in any area other than the first area.
Applicant argues (page 9-16) that the rejections are in error because there is “a clear case of confusion about the meaning of the word ‘area’,” on the part of the examiner.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Rather, it appears that Applicant is attempting to claim and argue that the “first area” and the “second area” are simultaneously areas of the substrate and areas of the OLED panel, and many instances of the indefiniteness stem from this. The first and second areas of claim 34 are initially introduced into the claim as areas of the substrate. The substrate is an element with the OLED panel and an area of the substrate is limited to an area of that element only. Subsequent recitations of the first and/or second areas which are inconsistent with this result in the rejections above.
Applicant, however, appears to believe that the first and second area can be understood as both areas of the substrate and areas of the OLED panel. The general lack of consistency or the conflation between the two is demonstrated in the claims. For example, in claim 34, applicant switches from a “first area” and a “second area” of the substrate (line 3) to a “first area” and a ”second area” of the OLED panel (last two lines). Applicant again does this in claim 44, where first and second areas of the OLED panel are initially defined (lines 3-4) and then Applicant switches to “the first area of the substrate” (line 14). Applicant also demonstrates the conflation throughout the claim by requiring a dispositional relationship with the first and/or second areas which make no sense in the context of an area of the substrate. For example, applicant repeatedly claims that the other layers, e.g. the first/second electrodes, are “in” the first/second area. If the area is defined as an area of the substrate, there is no understanding of how the first or second electrode can be “in” the area of the substrate. Applicant appears to either believe it is acceptable claim construction to define an area “of the substrate” and then subsequently expect a recitation of the same area in association with a different element of the device, or is demonstrating general confusion as to the use of the word “area” within the claims. In either instance the result is substantial issues of indefiniteness in the claims.
Additionally indicative of this general confusion is the fact that applicant repeatedly switches between arguments based upon areas of the substrate and arguments based upon areas of the OLED panel and the general lack of consistency between claimed terms and the terms of the disclosure as it relates to “areas.” For example, the specification defines several “areas” of the OLED panel: an emitting area 2, a non-light emitting area 7 (of the intermediate device), and a non-light emitting border 8. Applicant has repeatedly presented claims, however, with a “first area” and “second area” of the substrate, and then attempted to make arguments based on the disclosed areas which are of the OLED panels.
The claims further appear to disregard the fact that the claim is a method claim and elements are changed/modified throughout the method. The lack of consistency between claimed terms, in particular the “areas,” as the elements, i.e. the substrate, are changed/modified. For example, the claims require, after the pass-through hole is formed, that the area of the pass-through hole is smaller than the area of the second area of the substrate. However, as disclosed the second area of the substrate 5 after the through-hole is formed is not commensurate with area 7; it is commensurate with area 8. The area of substrate 5 in area 8 is not larger than the area of 3, as required by the claim. The area of substrate 5 in area 7 is larger than 3, however the claim is not reciting the relative areas in a manner which clearly indicates that the area of substrate 5 before forming the through hole is larger than the area of the through hole.
Despite the myriad issues repeatedly raised by the examiner, Applicant has chosen to repeatedly argue that the claims are definite rather than properly amend the claims in a manner which clarifies them. At multiple stages of prosecution, applicant has added additional terms or limitations which lack basic antecedent basis, are inconsistent with the specification, and/or further confuse the scope of the claims, e.g. the newly added “first area of the OLED panel.” It is the examiner’s recommendation that applicant carefully review the claims and amend in a manner consistent with the specification and emphasizing consistency of claim terms within the claims themselves.
Applicant argues (page 17-18) that “a pass-through hole” in the body of the claim is clear because the preamble merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention and therefore is of no significance to the claim construction.
In response, the examiner disagrees. The pass-though hole of the preamble would be understood to be a structural feature of the OLED panel, and therefore any subsequent recitation of a pass-through hole should be “the pass-through hole” if it is intended to be the same pass-through hole. As currently recited, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same pass-through hole. It is additionally noted that references of the OLED after the preamble have been recited as “the OLED panel,” so applicant appears to be applying their understanding of the weight of terms in the preamble, or lack thereof, inconsistently.
Applicant argues (page 19-20) that “the encapsulation” is clear and has proper antecedent basis because it is a functional limitation.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recitations of “encapsulation layer,” and “fully encapsulated OLED panel.” The fact that the interpretation of “encapsulation” might be that it is a functional limitation does not alleviate the requirement that the claim term be clearly defined in how it is related to the other claimed elements and have proper antecedent basis.
Applicant argues (page 20-21) that claim 37 is clear because the claim is unambiguous to the fact that that the insulating layer in the second area is required to be along the side walls of the pass-through hole.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the recitation “the encapsulation of the internal layers of the OLED stack in the first area along the side walls of the pass-through hole,” is unclear as to if it should be understood as “the encapsulation…in the first area along the side walls of the pass-through hole,” or “the OLED stack in the first area along the side walls of the pass-through hole.” Additionally, if it is the former, it is unclear as to what element(s) “the encapsulation of the internal layers” represents because it lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear how it is related to “an encapsulation layer,” “the encapsulation to the OLED stack,” and the “fully encapsulated OLED panel.”
Applicant argues (page 25) that the limitation "first electrode is formed only in the first area" is clear because it is a proper narrowing of claim 39 because “[o]nce the first electrode is formed, other layers are formed over the first electrode to create the OLED stack and eventually the final OLED panel,” and “[a]fter the initial formation step, there are no changes to the first electrode.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, Fig. 6A-E explicitly show the first electrode layer 61 being formed in area 7 as an intermediate product and then being removed. Accordingly, it is unclear as to what “only” does or does not preclude, hence rendering the scope indefinite.
Applicant argues (page 26-27) that the claim 39 is clear because minimum is defined as "the least quantity assignable, admissible, or possible," and the specification defines it as a lateral distance.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is unclear as to if “minimum width” is intended to require a width which is smallest relative to all other widths or if it is intended to require that the width be at least 3mm. Additionally, regarding “in all directions,” it is noted that the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 44 (page 27-28) are substantially the same as those regarding claim 34 and its dependents, and have been addressed above.
Applicant argues (page 29-30) that the claims are not required to recite a removal of a portion of the OLED stack for one to understand that the recitation of this claims is intended to be a portion of the OLED stack which remains only in the first area because the MPEP holds that “All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024] and MPEP 2103 C. Review the Claims: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation."
In response, it is respectfully noted that the any indefiniteness issues which are outstanding are not related to a lack of a limitation being considered or a limitation which merely suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The basis for the rejections are outlined above.
Applicant argues (page 31-32) that the examiner did not properly respond to the arguments concerning prior art from in applicant’s response filed 6/23/2025.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, no art rejection was applied in the final Office action mailed 7/10/2025, and therefore all arguments regarding the prior art were moot because they did not apply to any rejections applied in that Office action. It was the position of the Office that rejecting the amended claims over prior art in the final Office action mailed on 7/10/2025 would have been improper because there was a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the claims at issue and such a rejection would have been based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed the claims or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. In particular, it is noted that at least some of the confusion was introduced by applicant’s arguments filed 6/23/2025, as addressed in the rejections and response to arguments of the final Office action mailed 7/10/2025. The fact that a prior art rejection was presented in a previous action, based on different claims and with a different record, does not compromise the assessment that an art rejection would have been improper.
Applicant argues (page 32) that the rejection over Lee, Jimbo, Kanaya and/or Choi be withdrawn.
The examiner notes that no rejection over these references has been made in the current Office action and therefore there is no rejection to be withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to any of the current rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights