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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: Before the number of each drawing, add “Fig.”. For example: *** This should be done for Figures 2-10. *** In Figure 2, make “d1” and “d2” larger. In Figure 3, move reference number “300” and its reference line to the support assembly. Currently, it’s pointing to the cover plate 400. In Figure 4, make “d1” and “d2” larger. In Figure 9, make d1 larger and make d3, d4, and d5 more visible/larger. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 11, paragraph 53, first sentence: Check the translation of this sentence. The translation does not make sense. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 6-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6, line 2: Please provide antecedent basis for “the first and second directions”. Claim 6, line 5: Should the reference to “the two adjacent pixel openings” be to two adjacent support columns instead? Please review the language. Claims 7-18 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 6. Claim 15: Change “ 1.3˜1.9 ” to “1.3-1.9”. Claims 16-18 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 15. Claim 17: Change “ 1.3˜1.9 ” to “1.3-1.9”. Claim 18 is objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 17. Claim 18, line 8: Add “wherein” at the beginning of the line. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for reasonable angles between zero and 30 degrees, does not reasonably provide enablement for extreme values less than 30 degrees. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Claim 8 requires the following: wherein at least two adjacent support columns within the support assembly have opposite first and second mating surfaces, the first and second mating surfaces are parallel to each other, or a plane where the first mating surface is located intersects with a plane where the second mating surface is located; alternatively, the first and second mating surfaces are parallel to each other, an angle between the first mating surface and the second direction is less than or equal to 30 degrees , and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction. (emphasis added). While reasonable angles between zero and 30 degrees are enabled, extreme angles (-100°, -200°, -500°, -1000°, -infinity degrees) are not enabled. There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). (A) The breadth of the claims: The breadth of the claims encompasses two adjacent support columns having opposite first and second mating surfaces, the first and second mating surfaces being parallel to each other, and an angle between the first mating surface and the second direction is less than or equal to 30 degrees. The scope of this claim encompasses 30 degrees, 25 degrees, 20 degrees, 15 degrees, 10 degrees, 5 degrees, 0 degrees, -5 degrees, -50 degrees, -100 degrees, -200 degrees, -500 degrees, -1000 degrees, and negative infinity degrees. ( B) The nature of the invention: The invention is a display device having a multi-column support structure between at least two pixels, the multi-column support structure having two adjacent support columns with the claimed relationship. (C) The state of the prior art: The prior art discloses two adjacent columns with parallel mating surfaces, the surfaces being parallel to the second direction (that is, the angle = 0°) . See Lu, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0393283, Figures 5, 6. The prior art also discloses two adjacent columns with parallel mating surfaces, the surfaces being at a non-zero angle (approximately 40°) with the second direction. See Bi, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0155075, Figure 3. (D) The level of one of ordinary skill: One having ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or materials science and 5 years of experience in the semiconductor industry. (E) The leve l of predictability in the art: The level of predictability is high for reasonable angles with the claimed range of 0°-30°, but low for extreme values. (F) The amount of dire ction provided by the inventor: The inventor provides information relating to reasonable values within the claimed range, but not for extreme values that fall within the scope of the claimed range. (G) The exi stence of working examples: The disclosure has no working examples. (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Given the information provided by the inventor, the state of the prior art, and the scope of the claims, the quantity of experimentation is undue. For these reasons, claim 8 is rejected as indefinite. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 2 -18 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 2, which depends from claim 1: This claim requires the following: … wherein the support assembly has a first spacing d1 between at least two adjacent support columns in a first direction, an extension size of the support column in the first direction is d2, and the first spacing d1 meets 0.15d2≤d1≤0.25d2; along a direction from a center of the display panel to an edge of the display panel, an absolute value of a difference between the first spacing d1 and a preset spacing value d gradually decreases in at least some areas, and the preset spacing value d is 0.2d2. A question arises as to whether both clauses are required, or if only one clause is required. Because the claim as written is vague on this point, claim 2, is rejected as indefinite. Claims 3-5 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 2. Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1: This claim is rejected on two bases. First, c laim 6 refers to “the first and second directions”. However, the first and second direction are not defined in claim 1 or claim 6. Because the first and second directions are not defined, claim 6 is rejected as indefinite. Second, the claim requires “ wherein a spacing gap is provided between the two adjacent pixel openings in the second direction, and an extension size of the spacing gap in the first direction is greater than an extension size of the spacing gap in the second direction. ” (emphasis added). However, while the spacing gap in the second direction has been defined, the spacing gap in the first direction has not been defined, nor would it make sense because the spacing gap is defined between the two adjacent pixel opening s in the second direction. Because the term “an extension size of the spacing gap in the first direction” has not been defined and does not make sense, claim 6 is rejected as indefinite. Claims 7-18 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 6. Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 11, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Claim 15 requires that “ a ratio of the first side to the second side of at least one of the supporting columns is 1.3˜1.9 .” This language can be interpreted as a varying ratio for one of supporting columns. However, since the support column is defined as rectangular (claim 12), the ratio cannot vary within one support column. Because the claim language is confusing, claim 15 is rejected as indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “ a ratio of the first side to the second side of at least one of the supporting columns is between 1.3 - 1.9 .” Claims 16-18 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 15. Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 11, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Claim 16 refers to “the preset ratio”, but antecedent basis for the preset ratio has not been provided. Because antecedent basis has not been provided, claim 16 is rejected as indefinite. Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 11, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 1: This claim requires “ the ratio of the first side to the second side of the support column is 1.3˜1.9 .” As with claim 15, this language can be interpreted as a varying ratio for one of supporting columns. However, since the support column is defined as rectangular (claim 12), the ratio cannot vary within one support column. Because the claim language is confusing, claim 17 is rejected as indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “ a ratio of the first side to the second side of at least one of the supporting columns is between 1.3 - 1.9 .” Claim 18 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 17. Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 17, which depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 11, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Claim 18 refers to “the preset ratio”, but antecedent basis for the preset ratio has not been provided. Because antecedent basis has not been provided, claim 18 is rejected as indefinite. 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 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. Claim s 1 and 6 -8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bi, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0155075 , Figures 3-6. Bi, Figures 3, 4: B i Figures 5, 6 : Bi Figures 3-6, directed to similar subject matter, discloses a display panel, comprising: a substrate (1) ; a pixel definition layer (32) provided on the substrate (1) , the pixel definition layer (32) comprising an isolation structure (32) and a plurality of pixel openings (unnumbered) formed and enclosed by the isolation structure (32) ; a support assembly (215) provided on a side of the isolation structure (32) facing away from the substrate (1) and located between two pixel openings (unnumbered) which are at least partially adjacent, at least part of the support assembly (215) comprising two or more support columns (215) spaced apart; and a cover plate (2) located on a side of the support assembly (215) facing away from the pixel definition layer (32) . Bi specification ¶¶ 28-42. Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Bi discloses the plurality of pixel openings (unnumbered) are arranged in an array along the first and second directions (X, Y) , the second direction (Y) intersects with the first direction (X) , the support assembly (215) is located between two adjacent pixel openings (unnumbered) along the second direction (Y) , and multiple support columns (215) are arranged along the first direction (X) within the support assembly (215) , wherein a spacing gap is provided between the two adjacent pixel openings (unnumbered) in the second direction (Y) , and an extension size of the spacing gap in the first direction (X) is greater than an extension size of the spacing gap in the second direction (Y) . See Bi Figure 3. Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 6: Bi discloses wherein multiple support columns (215) are arranged to be spaced apart along the first direction (X) within the support assembly (215) . See Bi Figure 3. Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7: Bi discloses at least two adjacent support columns (215) within the support assembly (215) have opposite first and second mating surfaces, the first and second mating surfaces are parallel to each other. See id. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bi Figures 3-6 and 11 . Regarding claim 9, w hich depends from claim 6: Bi Figures 3-6 do not disclose wherein two adjacent support columns (215) are arranged to be misaligned within the support assembly . Bi Figure 11 discloses two adjacent support columns (615) are arranged to be misaligned within the support assembly (615). To the extent that Bi Figure 11 incorporates by reference Bi Figures 3-6, Bi anticipates claim 9. To the extent that Bi Figure 11 does not incorporate Bi Figures 3-6 by reference, one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Bi Figures 3-6 to include the Bi Figure 11 design because the modification would have involved the substitution of equivalents. This renders obvious claim 9. 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. Claim s 1 , 6-8, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0393283, Figures 3-6 , and further in view of Bi Figures 3 - 6. Lu, Figures 3-6: Regarding claim 1: Lu Figures 3-6 disclose a display panel, comprising: a substrate (driving array substrate) ; a pixel definition layer (13) provided on the substrate (driving array substrate) , the pixel definition layer (11, 13) comprising an isolation structure (13) and a plurality of pixel openings (11) formed and enclosed by the isolation structure (13) ; a support assembly (12: 121, 122) provided on a side of the isolation structure (13) facing away from the substrate (driving array substrate) and located between two pixel openings (11) which are at least partially adjacent, at least part of the support assembly (12: 121, 122) comprising two or more support columns (121, 122) spaced apart; and a layer (unnumbered, on which touch body (14) is placed) located on a side of the support assembly (12: 121, 122) facing away from the pixel definition layer (11, 13) . Lu specification ¶¶ 29-48. Lu does not identify the unnumbered layer. Bi Figures 3 - 6, directed to similar subject matter, discloses a display panel, comprising: a substrate (1) ; a pixel definition layer (32) provided on the substrate (1) , the pixel definition layer (32) comprising an isolation structure (32) and a plurality of pixel openings (unnumbered) formed and enclosed by the isolation structure (32) ; a support assembly (215) provided on a side of the isolation structure (32) facing away from the substrate (1) and located between two pixel openings (unnumbered) which are at least partially adjacent, at least part of the support assembly (215) comprising two or more support columns (215) spaced apart; and a cover plate (2) located on a side of the support assembly (215) facing away from the pixel definition layer (32) . Bi specification ¶¶ 28- 42 . One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Lu to include the Bi cover plate (2) because the modification would protect the display device when the touch body contacts the display. Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Lu discloses the plurality of pixel openings (11) are arranged in an array along the first and second directions (1 st direction, 2 nd direction) , the second direction (2 nd direction) intersects with the first direction (1 st direction) , the support assembly (12: 121, 122) is located between two adjacent pixel openings (11) along the second direction (2 nd direction) , and multiple support columns (121, 122) are arranged along the first direction (1 st direction) within the support assembly (12) , wherein a spacing gap is provided between the two adjacent pixel openings (11) in the second direction (2 nd direction) , and an extension size of the spacing gap in the first direction (1 st direction) is greater than an extension size of the spacing gap in the second direction (2 nd direction) . See Lu Figure 5. Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 6: Lu discloses multiple support columns (121, 122) are arranged to be spaced apart along the first direction (1 st direction) within the support assembly (12) . See id. Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7: Lu discloses at least two adjacent support columns (121, 122) within the support assembly (12: 121, 122) have opposite first and second mating surfaces, the first and second mating surfaces are parallel to each other; alternatively, the first and second mating surfaces are parallel to each other, an angle between the first mating surface and the second direction is less than or equal to 30 degrees (zero degrees) , and the second direction (2 nd direction) is perpendicular to the first direction (1 st direction) . See id. Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 7: Lu discloses an outer contour of an orthogonal projection of the support column (121, 122) on the substrate (driving array substrate) is a polygon (rectangle) . See id. Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 11: Lu discloses the outer contour of the orthogonal projection of the support column (121, 122) on the substrate (driving array substrate) is rectangular and has a first side and a second side connected to each other. See id. Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 12: Lu discloses the first sides of at least two adjacent support columns (121, 122) in the first direction (1 st direction) within the support assembly (12: 121, 122) are parallel to each other, and the first side is parallel to the row direction (1 st direction) . See id. Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 12: Lu discloses an angle between the first side and the first direction (1 st direction ) (0°) is less than an angle between the second side and the first direction (1 st direction) (90°) , and a length of the first side is greater than a length of the second side. See id. Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 12: Lu discloses that a ratio of the first side to the second side of at least one of the supporting columns (121, 122) is 1.3˜1.9 . See id. Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 15: Lu discloses the display panel comprises a display area, the display area comprises a first display area and a second display area arranged in a direction from the edge of the display panel to the center of the display panel, and a third display area located between the first display area and the second display area, and in the support assembly (12: 121, 122) within the third display area, the ratio of the first side to the second side of the support column is 1.3˜1.9. See id. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-5, 10, 16, and 18- 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the Section 112(b) rejections and the claim objections were addressed . The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regard to claim 2 : The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “ the first spacing d1 meets 0.15d2≤d1≤0.25d2; along a direction from a center of the display panel to an edge of the display panel, an absolute value of a difference between the first spacing d1 and a preset spacing value d gradually decreases in at least some areas, and the preset spacing value d is 0.2d2 ”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. With regard to claims 3-5 : The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 2 above. With regard to claim 10 : The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “ wherein within the support assembly, an extension distance of misaligned parts of the two adjacent support columns in the second direction is a misaligned distance d3, an extension width of the support column in the second direction is d4, and the misaligned distance d3 meets 0.35d4≤d3≤0.45d4 ”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. With regard to claim 1 6 : The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “ in a direction from a center of the display panel to an edge of the display panel, an absolute value of a difference between the ratio of the first side to the second side and the preset ratio gradually decreases in at least some areas, and the preset ratio is 1.6 ”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. With regard to claim 1 8 : The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “ wherein in a direction from the second display area to the third display area, in the support assembly within the second display area, an absolute value of a difference between the ratio of the first side to the second side of the support column and the preset ratio gradually decreases; and/or, in a direction from the first display area to the third display area, in the support assembly within the first display area, an absolute value of a difference between the ratio of the first side to the second side of the support column and the preset ratio gradually decreases; a distribution density of the support columns within the third display area is greater than a distribution density of the support columns within the first display area and/or the second display area ”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. With regard to claim 1 9 : The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “ wherein in at least two adjacent support columns within the support assembly, one of the at least two adjacent support columns is recessed facing a surface of the other of the at least two adjacent support columns to form a groove, the other of the at least two adjacent support columns protrudes to form a protruding part, and the protruding part is located in the groove ”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. With regard to claim 20 : The claim ha s been found allowable due to its dependency from claim 1 9 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7567 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Fernando Toledo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1867 . 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. /Victoria K. Hall/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897