DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 18/475,295 originally filed 09/27/2023. The amendment presented on 03/04/2026 which provides amendments to claims 1, 11-14, 16, 18, cancels claims 2-5, 10, 15, 21-22, and adds new claims 23-26 is hereby acknowledged.
Currently Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 11-14, 16-20, and 23-26 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the drawings, specifically, Figures 7 and 9 to add a gate signal “Sp” to the M6 transistor. The Office respectfully submits that this constitutes new matter. The specification as filed provides no support for the signal be it the newly introduced “sp” signal or any other signal being applied to the gate of the transistor. Simply, the specification as filed failed to provide support and assertions that “Those in the art would be sufficiently clear as how and when to turn on the sweeping transistor M6” are not found persuasive as the specification lacks details that would make it “sufficiently clear as how and when” said transistor should or should not be asserted. Therefore, Applicant’s amendment to the specification and drawings are considered new matter.
Regarding the amended portions of the claim related to “width-to-length” ratios, The Office notes this was addressed in the previous rejection and maintains that a general reading of Park’s disclosure provides sufficient meaning that one could change the W/L size to keep the same ratio or change the size to not keep the original ratio. Furthermore, as noted in the prior Final rejection, it has been held that the provision of adjustability (ie. changing WL ratios to correct for cross-voltage concerns by changing sizes of transistors as disclosed in the arts), where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Given the provisions in the prior arts, one could readily and easily, through routine experimentation, one of skill could devise the ratios as claimed (ie. one is smaller or larger than the other). It also is noted that changes in Size/Proportion involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), and "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.
In addition, the remaining portions of the claim have been previously mapped to various teachings in Kim, Park, Liu, and Zhang. Notably, Zhang is only referenced for the fact that one of skill could change the W/L ratios for correcting cross voltage concerns and the fact that Zhang teaches transistors with differing W/L ratios in different pixels is irrelevant as this is not the intended purpose of the Zhang reference. The prior arts of Kim, Park, and Liu sufficiently describe the claimed circuit including the two claimed first and second driving transistors. Specifically, the claim language added to the independent claim is similar to that of now cancelled claim 10 which was previously mapped to the prior arts of Kim for the circuit itself and Zhang for W/L ratio. The Office notes that prior claim 10 was also noted that Zhang teaches one of skill could readily design a W/L ratio of a transistor and this is recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore the results of such a design would have been predictable.
Remaining language removed from the independent claims are now added to new claims 23-26. The Office notes that prior arguments and mapping of elements still similarly apply and arguments herein and prior arguments remain the same. Therefore, after review The Office respectfully submits the claims still read on the prior art of record and additionally still are not adequately supported in the specification as originally filed.
Specification
The amendment filed 03/04/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The amendments to paragraph [0093] and Figures 7 and 9 add circuit elements, details, and descriptions that were not readily provided in any portion of the specification as filed nor could their description be inferred from any other portion of the specification as originally filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how or when “Sp” is asserted nor was this properly described in the specification. This is a new matter issue as Figures 7 and 9 were amended to add the “Sp” annotation and connection of this signal line however this was not originally described in the specification as filed. The only proper correction for these figures appear to be cancellation. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, 11-14, 16-20, and 23-26 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. The independent claim 1 was amended to recite in part, “wherein the pulse width modulation device comprises a second driving transistor, the second driving transistor is configured to provide, according to a potential at a control terminal of the second driving transistor, a turn-off voltage to a current driving loop comprising the first driving transistor, to control a turn-on duration of the current driving loop comprising the first driving transistor”, and claim 26 recites in part “wherein the pulse width modulation module further comprises a sweeping transistor, the sweeping transistor is configured to transmit a pulse width control signal to the control terminal of the second driving transistor, and a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the sweeping transistor is smaller than or equal to a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the second driving transistor.”. Neither of the claims were adequately described in the original specification as filed 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.
The claims contain elements associated with the “pulse width modulation device” and “sweeping transistor” of which are utilized to drive the gate of the first driving transistor in the amplitude modulation device. One of skill in the art, in view of the originally filed disclosure, would not be apprised, without further teachings, of how, what, and when the sweeping voltage is triggered thereby allowing the gate of the first/second transistors to drive the signal to the amplitude modulation device from the pulse width modulation device.
The Specification discloses
[0092] With reference to Figure 7, the pulse width modulation device 20 further includes a sweeping transistor M6. The sweeping transistor M6 is configured to transmit the pulse width control signal SWEEP to the control terminal of the second driving transistor T4. A width-to-length ratio of a channel of the sweeping transistor M6 is smaller than or equal to the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the second driving transistor T4.
[0093] The pulse width modulation device 20 further includes a sweeping transistor M6. A first terminal of the sweeping transistor M6 receives the pulse width control signal SWEEP, and a second terminal of the sweeping transistor M6 is electrically connected with the control terminal of the second driving transistor T4. Thus, when the sweeping transistor M6 is turned on, the pulse width control signal SWEEP can be transmitted to the control terminal of the second driving transistor T4 through the sweeping transistor, to control a timing sequence of the pulse width control signal SWEEP. The second driving transistor T4 is a transistor for the purpose of control, and needs sufficient driving capability. Therefore, the second driving transistor T4 has a channel with a large enough width-to-length ratio, to reduce the turn-on resistance of the transistor and improving the driving capability of the second driving transistor T4. The sweeping transistor only controls the timing sequence of the pulse width control signal and does not need high driving capability. In order to save space occupied by the resistors, the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the sweeping transistor is smaller than or equal to the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the second driving transistor.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7
As can be seen in the originally disclosed paragraphs and in the corresponding figure 7 (and similarly figure 9), the signal that turns on the M6 transistor was not provided in the drawing nor was it disclosed in the written disclosure as filed. The claim fails to comply with the written description requirement because the gate signal line provided to M6 is not taught nor shown in any drawings nor is it’s description or use readily apparent from any other section of the specification. Therefore, 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.
Further depending claims 6-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 23-25 not mentioned above inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 12-14, 16-20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0312216 A1 hereinafter Kim in view of Park U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0321202 A1 hereinafter Park in view of Zhang U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0332472 A1 hereinafter Zhang.
Consider Claim 1:
Kim discloses a pixel driving circuit, comprising (Kim, See Abstract.)
a light emitting element, (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 item 100)
a pulse width modulation device and (Kim, [0268], “Specifically, during the emission period, because the seventh to tenth transistors T1, T5, T6, and T10 are turned on according to the control signal Emi, the PWM driving circuit 910 and the PAM driving circuit 920 are electrically connected to each other, and are also electrically connected to the driving voltage terminal and the light emitting element 100.”)
an amplitude modulation device, (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 item 1120)
wherein the pulse width modulation device is configured to control a light emitting duration of the light emitting element, (Kim, [0268], “Specifically, during the emission period, because the seventh to tenth transistors T1, T5, T6, and T10 are turned on according to the control signal Emi, the PWM driving circuit 910 and the PAM driving circuit 920 are electrically connected to each other, and are also electrically connected to the driving voltage terminal and the light emitting element 100.”)
wherein the amplitude modulation device comprises a first driving transistor, (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 item T8)
a first switch transistor and (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 item T10)
a second switch transistor, (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 item T6)
the first driving transistor is configured to provide a driving current for the light emitting element, (Kim, [0272], “When the fourth transistor T3 is turned on, the driving voltage VDD is transferred to the gate terminal C of the first transistor T8 through the seventh transistor T1, the fourth transistor T3, and the eighth transistor T5. When the driving voltage VDD is applied to the gate terminal C of the first transistor T8, the first transistor T8 is turned off. When the first transistor T8 is turned off, the driving voltage VDD does not reach the light emitting element 100, and therefore, light emission of the light emitting element 100 is terminated.”)
the first switch transistor and the second switch transistor are configured to selectively control the same light emitting element to enter a light emitting stage. (Kim, [0268], “Specifically, during the emission period, because the seventh to tenth transistors T1, T5, T6, and T10 are turned on according to the control signal Emi, the PWM driving circuit 910 and the PAM driving circuit 920 are electrically connected to each other, and are also electrically connected to the driving voltage terminal and the light emitting element 100.”)
wherein the pulse width modulation device comprises a second driving transistor, the second driving transistor is configured to provide, according to a potential at a control terminal of the second driving transistor, a turn-off voltage to a current driving loop comprising the first driving transistor, to control a turn-on duration of the current driving loop comprising the first driving transistor. (Kim, [0234], “If (e.g., based on) the PWM data voltage is applied through the source terminal of the sixth transistor T2 while the fifth transistor T4 and the sixth transistor T2 are turned on according to a control signal SPWM(n), the PWM driving circuit 910 applies to the gate terminal A of the fourth transistor T3 by a voltage equal to the sum of the applied PWM data voltage and a threshold voltage of the fourth transistor T3 through the fourth transistor T3 and the fifth transistor T4 that are turned on.”)
Kim however while teaching the first and second transistors does not expressly provide that the W/L ratio of these transistors are or could be different and therefore does not expressly teach a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the first switch transistor is different from a width-to- length ratio of a channel of the second switch transistor, and a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the first driving transistor is larger than a width-to- length ratio of a channel of the second driving transistor.
Park however expressly teaches that it was a known technique in the art to provide different size transistors and thus teaches a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the first … transistor is different from a width-to- length ratio of a channel of the second … transistor, and a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the first … transistor is larger than a width-to- length ratio of a channel of the second … transistor. (Park, [0130], “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the transistors with different W/L ratios as this was a known technique in the art in view of Park and would have been utilized for the purpose of to reduce a voltage difference between terminals thereby minimizing voltage fluctuation of the nodes and minimizing a flicker phenomenon. (Park, [0117])
Zhang, however, also teaches that those of skill in the art were aware that the “W/L” ratios of transistors can be adjusted in any variations suggesting one or both and thus teaches a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the first … transistor is different from a width-to- length ratio of a channel of the second … transistor, and a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the first … transistor is larger than a width-to- length ratio of a channel of the second … transistor. (Zhang, [0071-0076], [0080], [0071], “Specifically, according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio, the channel length of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or both the channel length and the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted. In an embodiment, an example in which the channel length of the thin film transistor is adjusted according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio is provided.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different W/L ratios of the transistors as this was a known technique in the art for adjusting the display panel for the suitability and would be used to improve the non-uniform luminance of the display panel and improve the display effect (Zhang, [0096]) since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the adjustability and reasons thereof are readily taught in view of Zhang and the results of said adjustability would have been recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore predictable.
Consider Claim 6:
Kim in view of Park in view of Zhang disclose the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, wherein a width-to-length ratio of a channel of at least one of the first switch transistor, the second switch transistor and the first driving transistor is larger than a width-to-length ratio of a channel of any one of a first data writing transistor, a first compensation transistor, a first reset transistor or an initialization transistor in the pixel driving circuit. (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.”)
Consider Claim 7:
Kim in view of Park in view of Zhang disclose the pixel driving circuit according to claim 6, wherein width-to-length ratios of channels of the first switch transistor, the second switch transistor and the first driving transistor are all larger than the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the first transistor. (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.”)
Consider Claim 8:
Kim in view of Park in view of Zhang disclose the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, wherein the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the first switch transistor is larger than a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the first driving transistor, and/or the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the second switch transistor is larger than the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the first driving transistor. (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.”)
Consider Claim 9:
Kim in view of Park in view of Zhang disclose the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, wherein a length of a channel of the first driving transistor is larger than a length of a channel of any other transistor in the amplitude modulation device. (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.”)
Consider Claim 12:
Kim in view of Park in view of Zhang disclose the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, wherein the second driving transistor is configured to provide, according to the potential at the control terminal of the second driving transistor, the turn-off voltage to a control terminal of the first driving transistor. (Kim, [0140], [0174], [0173], “The transistor T8 may provide a driving current having different amplitudes to the light emitting element 100 according to the magnitude of a voltage applied to a gate terminal C. Specifically, the PAM driving circuit 720 may provide a driving current having an amplitude corresponding to the applied PAM data voltage to the light emitting element 100 through the transistor T8.”)
Consider Claim 13:
Kim in view of Park in view of Zhang discloses the pixel driving circuit according to claim 12, wherein the amplitude modulation device comprises a first data writing transistor, the first data writing transistor selectively provides a first data writing signal for a first terminal of the first driving transistor, (Kim, [0289], “[0238] A ninth transistor T6 has a source terminal that is commonly connected to the source terminal of the fourth transistor T3, the drain terminal of the sixth transistor T2, and the drain terminal of the seventh transistor T1, and a drain terminal that is commonly connected to the source terminal of the first transistor T8 and the drain terminal of the third transistor T7.”)
the pulse width modulation device further comprises a second data writing transistor, the second data writing transistor selectively provides a second data writing signal for the control terminal of the second driving transistor, (Kim, [0236] The seventh transistor T1 is turned on/off according to a control signal Emi to electrically connect or disconnect the driving voltage terminal VDD and the PWM driving circuit 910.”)
Park in view of Zhang, in addition, teaches that those of skill in the art were aware that the “W/L” ratios of the transistors in a pixel circuit could be adjusted and thus teaches and a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the first data writing transistor is smaller than or equal to a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the second data writing transistor. (Park, [0130], Zhang, [0071-0076], [0080], [0071], “Specifically, according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio, the channel length of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or both the channel length and the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted. In an embodiment, an example in which the channel length of the thin film transistor is adjusted according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio is provided.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different W/L ratios of the transistors as this was a known technique in the art for adjusting the display panel for the suitability and would be used to improve the non-uniform luminance of the display panel and improve the display effect (Zhang, [0096]) and would have been utilized for the purpose of to reduce a voltage difference between terminals thereby minimizing voltage fluctuation of the nodes and minimizing a flicker phenomenon. (Park, [0117]) In addition, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the adjustability and reasons thereof are readily taught in view of Zhang and the results of said adjustability would have been recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore predictable.
Consider Claim 14:
Kim in view of Zhang discloses the pixel driving circuit according to claim 12, wherein the pulse width modulation device further comprises a second data writing transistor, the second data writing transistor is configured to selectively provide a second data writing signal for a first terminal of the second driving transistor, and (Kim, [0236] The seventh transistor T1 is turned on/off according to a control signal Emi to electrically connect or disconnect the driving voltage terminal VDD and the PWM driving circuit 910.”)
Park in view of Zhang, in addition, teaches that those of skill in the art were aware that the “W/L” ratios of the transistors in a pixel circuit could be adjusted and thus teaches a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the second data writing transistor is smaller than or equal to a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the second driving transistor. (Park, [0130], Zhang, [0071-0076], [0080], [0071], “Specifically, according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio, the channel length of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or both the channel length and the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted. In an embodiment, an example in which the channel length of the thin film transistor is adjusted according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio is provided.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different W/L ratios of the transistors as this was a known technique in the art for adjusting the display panel for the suitability and would be used to improve the non-uniform luminance of the display panel and improve the display effect (Zhang, [0096]) and would have been utilized for the purpose of to reduce a voltage difference between terminals thereby minimizing voltage fluctuation of the nodes and minimizing a flicker phenomenon. (Park, [0117]) In addition, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the adjustability and reasons thereof are readily taught in view of Zhang and the results of said adjustability would have been recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore predictable.
Consider Claim 16:
Kim in view of Zhang discloses the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, wherein the amplitude modulation device further comprises a third switch transistor connected in series in the current driving loop comprising the first driving transistor, (Kim, [0238], “A ninth transistor T6 has a source terminal that is commonly connected to the source terminal of the fourth transistor T3, the drain terminal of the sixth transistor T2, and the drain terminal of the seventh transistor T1, and a drain terminal that is commonly connected to the source terminal of the first transistor T8 and the drain terminal of the third transistor T7.”)
the second driving transistor is configured to provide, according to the potential at the control terminal of the second driving transistor, the turn-off voltage to a control terminal of the third switch transistor. (Kim, [0234], “If (e.g., based on) the PWM data voltage is applied through the source terminal of the sixth transistor T2 while the fifth transistor T4 and the sixth transistor T2 are turned on according to a control signal SPWM(n), the PWM driving circuit 910 applies to the gate terminal A of the fourth transistor T3 by a voltage equal to the sum of the applied PWM data voltage and a threshold voltage of the fourth transistor T3 through the fourth transistor T3 and the fifth transistor T4 that are turned on.”)
Consider Claim 17:
Kim in view of Zhang discloses the pixel driving circuit according to claim 16, and Zhang, in addition, teaches that those of skill in the art were aware that the “W/L” ratios of the transistors in a pixel circuit could be adjusted and thus teaches wherein a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the third switch transistor is larger than a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the first driving transistor; or, a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the third switch transistor is larger than a width-to-length ratio of a channel of a second transistor, wherein the second transistor is a transistor other than the first switch transistor and the second switch transistor. (Park, [0130], Zhang, [0071-0076], [0080], [0071], “Specifically, according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio, the channel length of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or both the channel length and the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted. In an embodiment, an example in which the channel length of the thin film transistor is adjusted according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio is provided.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different W/L ratios of the transistors as this was a known technique in the art for adjusting the display panel for the suitability and would be used to improve the non-uniform luminance of the display panel and improve the display effect (Zhang, [0096]) and would have been utilized for the purpose of to reduce a voltage difference between terminals thereby minimizing voltage fluctuation of the nodes and minimizing a flicker phenomenon. (Park, [0117]) In addition, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the adjustability and reasons thereof are readily taught in view of Zhang and the results of said adjustability would have been recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore predictable.
Consider Claim 18:
Kim in view of Zhang discloses the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, and Park in view of Zhang, in addition, teaches that those of skill in the art were aware that the “W/L” ratios of the transistors in a pixel circuit could be adjusted and thus teaches wherein a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the second driving transistor is larger than a width-to- length ratio of a channel of any other transistor in the pulse width modulation device. (Park, [0130], Zhang, [0071-0076], [0080], [0071], “Specifically, according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio, the channel length of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or both the channel length and the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted. In an embodiment, an example in which the channel length of the thin film transistor is adjusted according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio is provided.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different W/L ratios of the transistors as this was a known technique in the art for adjusting the display panel for the suitability and would be used to improve the non-uniform luminance of the display panel and improve the display effect (Zhang, [0096]) and would have been utilized for the purpose of to reduce a voltage difference between terminals thereby minimizing voltage fluctuation of the nodes and minimizing a flicker phenomenon. (Park, [0117]) In addition, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the adjustability and reasons thereof are readily taught in view of Zhang and the results of said adjustability would have been recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore predictable.
Consider Claim 19:
Kim in view of Zhang disclose a display panel comprising the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1. (Kim, [0095], “Referring to FIG. 5, the display panel 1000 may include a light emitting element 100 and a pixel circuit 200.”)
Consider Claim 20:
Kim in view of Zhang disclose a display device comprising the display panel according to claim 19. (Kim, [0095], “Referring to FIG. 5, the display panel 1000 may include a light emitting element 100 and a pixel circuit 200.”)
Consider Claim 23:
Kim in view of Zhang disclose the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, the first switch transistor is connected in series between the first driving transistor and the light emitting element, the second switch transistor is connected in series between the first driving transistor and a first power signal terminal, a cathode of the light emitting element is connected with a second power signal terminal, wherein the first switch transistor and the second switch transistor are P-type transistors, (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.” [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.”)
and Park in view of Zhang, in addition, teaches that those of skill in the art were aware that the “W/L” ratios of the transistors in a pixel circuit could be adjusted and thus teaches the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the first switch transistor is larger than the width- to-length ratio of the channel of the second switch transistor. (Park, [0130], Zhang, [0071-0076], [0080], [0071], “Specifically, according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio, the channel length of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or both the channel length and the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted. In an embodiment, an example in which the channel length of the thin film transistor is adjusted according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio is provided.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different W/L ratios of the transistors as this was a known technique in the art for adjusting the display panel for the suitability and would be used to improve the non-uniform luminance of the display panel and improve the display effect (Zhang, [0096]) and would have been utilized for the purpose of to reduce a voltage difference between terminals thereby minimizing voltage fluctuation of the nodes and minimizing a flicker phenomenon. (Park, [0117]) In addition, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the adjustability and reasons thereof are readily taught in view of Zhang and the results of said adjustability would have been recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore predictable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0312216 A1 in view of Zhang U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0332472 A1 as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Xiao et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0304364 A1 hereinafter Xiao.
Consider Claim 11:
Kim in view of Zhang disclose the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, wherein the amplitude modulation device comprises a first capacitor, the pulse width modulation device comprises a second capacitor, the first capacitor is electrically connected with a control terminal of the first driving transistor, the second capacitor is electrically connected with the control terminal of the second driving transistor, (Kim, [0146], “Referring to FIGS. 9 and 10, the PWM pixel circuits 900 and 1100 may be implemented with thirteen transistors (i.e., T1 to T13) and two capacitors (i.e., C1 and C2) in that the PWM pixel circuits 900 and 1100 include the PWM driving circuits 910 and 1110 and the PAM driving circuits 920 and 1120. Meanwhile, referring to FIG. 11, the PAM pixel circuit 1200 may be implemented with seven transistors (i.e., T1 to T7) and one capacitor (i.e., C2) in that it includes only the PAM driving circuit 1210. As such, the PAM pixel circuit 1200 may be implemented in a smaller size than the PWM pixel circuits 900 and 1100.”)
Kim in view of Zhang however do not provide that a capacitance of the second capacitor is smaller than a capacitance of the first capacitor.
Xiao however teaches a known technique from those of ordinary skill in the art to provide capacitors of difference in capacitances as this was a known technique and therefore teaches a capacitance of the second capacitor is smaller than a capacitance of the first capacitor. (Xiao, [0073], [0071], “In order to better demonstrate the conclusion above, the disclosure provides relationship diagrams between the light-emission current of the light-emitting element OLED and the high-level signal Vdd output by the high-level power supply terminal VDD when the first capacitor C1 and the second capacitor C2 take different capacitances, as illustrated in FIG. 6A and FIG. 6B. Specifically both of the capacitances of the first capacitor C1 and the second capacitor C2 are 50 fF in FIG. 6A; and the capacitance of the first capacitor C1 is 80 fF, and the capacitance of the second capacitor C2 is 20 fF in FIG. 6B. As can be apparent from comparison between FIG. 6A and FIG. 6B, when the ratio of the capacitance of the first capacitor C1 to the capacitance of the second capacitor C2 is larger, the change of the IR drop of the high-level signal Vdd has less influence to the operating current of the light-emitting element OLED.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use capacitors of different capacitances as this was a known technique in view of Xiao and would have been used for the art recognized purpose of the change of the IR drop of the high-level signal Vdd has less influence to the operating current of the light-emitting element OLED. (Xiao, [0071])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0312216 A1 hereinafter Kim in view of Zhang U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0332472 A1 hereinafter Zhang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Liu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0062721 A1.
Consider Claim 24:
Kim in view of Zhang disclose the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, the first switch transistor is connected in series between the first driving transistor and the light emitting element, the second switch transistor is connected in series between the first driving transistor and a first power signal terminal, a cathode of the light emitting element is connected with a second power signal terminal. (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.” [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.”)
Park in view of Zhang, in addition, teaches that those of skill in the art were aware that the “W/L” ratios of the transistors in a pixel circuit could be adjusted and thus teaches the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the second switch transistor is larger than the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the first switch transistor. (Park, [0130], Zhang, [0071-0076], [0080], [0071], “Specifically, according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio, the channel length of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or both the channel length and the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted. In an embodiment, an example in which the channel length of the thin film transistor is adjusted according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio is provided.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different W/L ratios of the transistors as this was a known technique in the art for adjusting the display panel for the suitability and would be used to improve the non-uniform luminance of the display panel and improve the display effect (Zhang, [0096]) and would have been utilized for the purpose of to reduce a voltage difference between terminals thereby minimizing voltage fluctuation of the nodes and minimizing a flicker phenomenon. (Park, [0117]) In addition, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the adjustability and reasons thereof are readily taught in view of Zhang and the results of said adjustability would have been recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore predictable.
Liu however teaches that it was a known technique by those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention P-type could be substituted for N-type and thus teaches wherein the first switch transistor and the second switch transistor are N-type transistors. (Liu, [0067], “For example, as shown in FIG. 5, the second transistor T2 may be an N-type thin film transistor. For example, the second transistor T2 can be an N-type oxide thin film transistor, and Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO) can be adopted as the active layer of the thin film transistor; compared with the case of using Low Temperature Poly Silicon (LTPS) or amorphous silicon (e.g., hydrogenated amorphous silicon) as the active layer of the thin film transistor, it can effectively reduce the size of the transistor and reduce the leakage current”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize N-Type transistors as this is a known technique in view of Liu and would have been used for the purpose of it can effectively reduce the size of the transistor and reduce the leakage current. (Liu, [0067])
Consider Claim 25:
Kim in view of Zhang disclose the pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, wherein the first switch transistor is an N-type transistor, the second switch transistor is a P- type transistor, the first switch transistor is connected in series between the first driving transistor and the light emitting element, the second switch transistor is connected in series between the first driving transistor and a first power signal terminal, a cathode of the light emitting element is connected with a second power signal terminal. (Kim, [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.” [0138-0167], See Fig. 10 and [0130] “According to an embodiment, the size of the fifth transistor T5 shared by the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2 may be equal to or greater than sizes of remaining switching transistors (e.g., the second transistor T2, the third transistor T3, the fourth transistor T4, the sixth transistor T6, and the seventh transistor T7) of the first pixel PX1 and the second pixel PX2.”)
Park in view of Zhang, n addition, teaches that those of skill in the art were aware that the “W/L” ratios of the transistors in a pixel circuit could be adjusted and thus teaches the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the second switch transistor is larger than the width-to-length ratio of the channel of the first switch transistor. (Park, [0130], Zhang, [0071-0076], [0080], [0071], “Specifically, according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio, the channel length of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or both the channel length and the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted. In an embodiment, an example in which the channel length of the thin film transistor is adjusted according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio is provided.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different W/L ratios of the transistors as this was a known technique in the art for adjusting the display panel for the suitability and would be used to improve the non-uniform luminance of the display panel and improve the display effect (Zhang, [0096]) and would have been utilized for the purpose of to reduce a voltage difference between terminals thereby minimizing voltage fluctuation of the nodes and minimizing a flicker phenomenon. (Park, [0117]) In addition, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the adjustability and reasons thereof are readily taught in view of Zhang and the results of said adjustability would have been recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore predictable.
Liu however teaches that it was a known technique by those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention P-type could be substituted for N-type and thus teaches wherein the first switch transistor is an N-type transistor, the second switch transistor is a P- type transistor. (Liu, [0067], “For example, as shown in FIG. 5, the second transistor T2 may be an N-type thin film transistor. For example, the second transistor T2 can be an N-type oxide thin film transistor, and Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO) can be adopted as the active layer of the thin film transistor; compared with the case of using Low Temperature Poly Silicon (LTPS) or amorphous silicon (e.g., hydrogenated amorphous silicon) as the active layer of the thin film transistor, it can effectively reduce the size of the transistor and reduce the leakage current”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize N-Type transistors as this is a known technique in view of Liu and would have been used for the purpose of it can effectively reduce the size of the transistor and reduce the leakage current. (Liu, [0067])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0312216 A1 hereinafter Kim in view of Park et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0018546 A1 hereinafter Park '546.
Consider Claim 26:
Kim in view of Zhang disclose pixel driving circuit according to claim 1, however does not specify wherein the pulse width modulation module further comprises a sweeping transistor, the sweeping transistor is configured to transmit a pulse width control signal to the control terminal of the second driving transistor, and a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the sweeping transistor is smaller than or equal to a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the second driving transistor.
Park '546 however teaches that it was a known technique to provide a transistor on the input of a sweep signal and thus teaches wherein the pulse width modulation module further comprises a sweeping transistor, the sweeping transistor is configured to transmit a pulse width control signal to the control terminal of the second driving transistor. (Park '546, [0232-0233], [0287], "Referring to FIG. 10D, when the transistor T1 is turned on according to the Emi(n) signal, a portion of the S weep signal (Sweep) is applied to the A node while the transistor T1 is turned on. At this time, the portion of the sweep signal applied to the A node becomes a sweep voltage (Vsweep). When the sweep voltage (Vsweep) is applied to a node A, a PWM data voltage (VPWM_R/G/B) is coupled to the B node via the capacitor C1 along with the sweep voltage (Vsweep). ")
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a transistor at the input of the sweep signal as this was a known technique in view of Park '546 and those of skill would have readily recognized that such a feature would have been used for the purpose of such that the signal may vary depending on the row lines and one of skill would recognize that each row can be selectively driven. (Park '546, [0232])
Zhang teaches that those of skill in the art were aware that the “W/L” ratios of the transistors in a pixel circuit could be adjusted and thus teaches a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the sweeping transistor is smaller than or equal to a width-to-length ratio of a channel of the second driving transistor. (Park, [0130], Zhang, [0071-0076], [0080], [0071], “Specifically, according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio, the channel length of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted, or both the channel length and the channel width of the thin film transistor may be adjusted. In an embodiment, an example in which the channel length of the thin film transistor is adjusted according to the variation of the channel width-to-length ratio is provided.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different W/L ratios of the transistors as this was a know technique in the art for adjusting the display panel for the suitability and would be used to improve the non-uniform luminance of the display panel and improve the display effect (Zhang, [0096]) and would have been utilized for the purpose of to reduce a voltage difference between terminals thereby minimizing voltage fluctuation of the nodes and minimizing a flicker phenomenon. (Park, [0117]) In addition, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the adjustability and reasons thereof are readily taught in view of Zhang and the results of said adjustability would have been recognized as within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and therefore predictable. Given the provision in the prior arts, one could readily and easily, through routine experimentation, devised the ratios as claimed. It also is noted that changes in Size/Proportion involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), and "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Prior art made of record and not relied upon which is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited in a current or previous PTO-892. The prior art cited in a current or previous PTO-892 reads upon the applicants claims in part, in whole and/or gives a general reference to the knowledge and skill of persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Applicant, when responding to this Office action, should consider not only the cited references applied in the rejection but also any additional references made of record.
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests support be shown for any new or amended claims. More precisely, indicate support for any newly added language or amendments by specifying page, line numbers, and/or figure(s). This will assist The Office in compact prosecution of this application. The Office has cited particular columns, paragraphs, and/or line numbers in the applied rejection of the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within each claim, however other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider the cited reference(s) in its entirety and not only the cited portions as other sections of the reference may expand on the teachings of the cited portion(s).
Applicant Representatives are reminded of CFR 1.4(d)(2)(ii) which states “A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1) ), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2), must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.” When an unsigned or improperly signed amendment is received the amendment will be listed in the contents of the application file, but not entered. The examiner will notify applicant of the status of the application, advising him or her to furnish a duplicate amendment properly signed or to ratify the amendment already filed. In an application not under final rejection, applicant should be given a two month time period in which to ratify the previously filed amendment (37 CFR 1.135(c) ).
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. Granting of After Final Interviews: “Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied.” See MPEP § 713.09.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J JANSEN II whose telephone number is (571)272-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Normally Available Monday-Friday 9am-4pm EST.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on 571-272-3017. 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.
/Michael J Jansen II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626