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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 24, 2024 was filed before the mailing date of this first Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 8, “upper refractive index layers” should be, “upper refractive index layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
on line 4, “the upper mirror layer of the second sub-pixel” should be, “an upper mirror layer of the second sub-pixel”;
on line 5, “the upper mirror layer of the first sub-pixel” should be, “an upper mirror layer of the first sub-pixel”; and
on lines 5-6, “” should be “the upper mirror layer of the third sub-pixel” should be, “the upper mirror layer of the third sub-pixel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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 independent claim 1, lines 2-3 recite: “a substrate having a pixel including an emission area and a laser area and the substrate including a depressed portion corresponding to the laser area”. This recited language is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear which of the recited substrate or the recited pixel includes an emission area and a laser area. As another example, it is unclear what constitutes an emission area and a laser area. Are the emission area and laser area just locations on the substrate or do they include additional unrecited structure of the pixel? If it is additional unrecited structure of the pixel, then what structure of the pixel constitutes an emission area and what structure of the pixel constitutes a laser area? As a further example, it is unclear how a substrate has a pixel. Are the recited substrate and the recited pixel a single integrated structure or are the substate and the pixel separate and distinct structures? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-3 of claim 1 as reciting, “a substrate and a pixel, wherein the substrate includes a first area and a second area, and further wherein the substrate includes a depressed portion corresponding to the second area” because of this ambiguity. Claims 2-13 are also indefinite as a consequence of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, lines 7-9 recite: “wherein a height of an edge of each of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer adjacent to the bank is higher than a height of a center of each of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer.” This recited language is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the recited language each of makes it is unclear whether a height of an edge of . . . the first light-emitting layer . . . adjacent to the bank is higher than a height of a center of just the first light-emitting layer or both the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting. As another example, the recited language each of makes it is unclear whether a height of an edge of . . . the second light-emitting layer adjacent to the bank is higher than a height of a center of just the second light- emitting layer or both the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 7-9 of claim 3 as reciting, “wherein a height of an edge of the first light-emitting layer adjacent to the bank is higher than a height of a center the first light-emitting layer, and further wherein a height of an edge of the second light-emitting layer adjacent to the bank is higher than a height of a center the second light-emitting layer” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 6, lines 2-3 recite: “the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer adjacent to each other along a direction are connected to each other and are one body.” This recited language is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it appears that the phrase “the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer adjacent to each other along a direction are connected to each other” may be a literal translation into English of the Korean language priority application (Korea Patent Application No. 10- 2022-0189151) which is grammatically incorrect. As another example, it is unclear what “are one body” means in the context of the first and second light-emitting layers of a display device because claim 3, from which claim 6 depends via claim 5, recites that the first and second light-emitting layers are elements of the respective recited first and second light-emitting diodes. Does “are one body” mean that the other elements of the first and second light-emitting diodes are also part of the same body or are they somehow separate bodies? Perhaps “are one body” is a literal translated idiom from the Korean language priority application which has a different meaning in English? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-3 of claim 6 as reciting, “the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer are adjacent to each other along a direction and are connected to each other” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding independent claim 12, lines 1-3 recite: “wherein the pixel includes a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel, and each of the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel includes an emission area and a laser area”. This recited language is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear what structure constitutes an emission area and what structure constitutes a laser area for each of the sub-pixels. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-3 of claim 12 as reciting, “wherein the pixel includes a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel” because of this ambiguity.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0238596 A1 (Kuo).
Regarding claim 1, Kuo discloses, A display device (display device (2); FIG. 5; [0020]) comprising:
a substrate (substrate (3); annotated FIG. 5, below; [0036]) having a pixel (pixel (22); FIG. 5; [0020]) including an emission area (annotated FIG. 5, below) and a laser area (annotated FIG. 5, below) and the substrate ((3) and annotated FIG. 5, below) including a depressed portion (annotated FIG. 5, below) corresponding to the laser area (annotated FIG. 5, below);
a lower mirror layer (lower mirror layer (24); FIG. 5; [0027]) in the depressed portion of the substrate (annotated FIG. 5, below);
a first light-emitting diode (annotated FIG. 5, below) in the emission area (annotated FIG. 5, below) and over the lower mirror layer (24);
a second light-emitting diode (annotated FIG. 5, below) in the laser area (annotated FIG. 5, below) and over the lower mirror layer (24); and
an upper mirror layer (upper mirror layer (231); FIG. 5; [0028]) over the second light-emitting diode (annotated FIG. 5, below).1
PNG
media_image1.png
756
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kuo discloses, The display device (2) of claim 1, wherein the depressed portion (annotated FIG. 5, above) has a curved surface (annotated FIG. 5, above).
Regarding claim 9, Kuo discloses, The display device (2) of claim 1, further comprising:
a first transistor (annotated FIG. 8, below) and a second transistor (annotated FIG. 8, below) between the substrate ((3)—substrate (3) includes (31) and (32) per [0039]) and the first light-emitting diode (annotated FIG. 8, below) in the emission area (annotated FIG. 8, below); and
PNG
media_image2.png
547
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a third transistor (annotated FIG. 8, above) between the substrate ((3)—substrate (3) includes (31) and (32) per [0039]) and the second light-emitting diode in the laser area.
Regarding claim 10, Kuo discloses, The display device (2) of claim 9, wherein the first transistor (annotated FIG. 8, above) and the third transistor (annotated FIG. 8, above) are respectively connected to a first gate line (annotated FIG. 8, above) and a second gate line (annotated FIG. 8, above), and connected together to one data line (data line (321); annotated FIG. 8, above; [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Kuo discloses, The display device (2) of claim 1, wherein a thickness (thickness (T1); annotated FIG. 5, above) of the lower mirror layer (24) is greater (annotated FIG. 5, above) than a thickness (thickness (T2); annotated FIG. 5, above) of the upper mirror layer (231).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo.
Regarding claim 3, Kuo discloses, The display device (2) of claim 1, wherein the first light-emitting diode (annotated FIG. 5, above) includes a first pixel electrode (first pixel electrode (2243 and 2244); FIG. 5; [0036]), a first light-emitting layer (first light-emitting layer (222); FIG. 5; [0023]), and a common electrode (annotated FIG. 8, above), and the second light-emitting diode (annotated FIG. 5, above) includes a second pixel electrode (second pixel electrode (2244); FIG. 5; [0036]), a second light-emitting layer (second light-emitting layer (222); FIG. 5; [0023]), and the common electrode (annotated FIG. 8, above), the display device (2) further comprising:
a bank (annotated FIG. 5, above) between each of the first pixel electrode (2243 and 2244), the second pixel electrode (2244), and the common electrode (annotated FIG. 8, above).
But, Kuo does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein a height of an edge of each of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer adjacent to the bank is higher than a height of a center of each of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer.2
However, there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding a height of an edge of the first light-emitting layer adjacent the bank relative to a height of a center of the first light-emitting layer and regarding a height of an edge of the second light-emitting layer adjacent the bank relative to a height of a center of the second light-emitting layer—i.e., regarding the first light-emitting layer: (i) a height of an edge of the first light-emitting layer adjacent the bank can be the same as a height of a center of the first light-emitting layer, (ii) a height of an edge of the first light-emitting layer adjacent the bank can be lower than a height of a center of the first light-emitting layer, or (iii) a height of an edge of the first light-emitting layer adjacent the bank can be higher a height of a center of the first light-emitting layer; and, regarding the second light-emitting layer: (i) a height of an edge of the second light-emitting layer adjacent the bank can be the same as a height of a center of the second light-emitting layer, (ii) a height of an edge of the second light-emitting layer adjacent the bank can be lower than a height of a center of the second light-emitting layer, or (iii) a height of an edge of the second light-emitting layer adjacent the bank can be higher a height of a center of the second light-emitting layer—and, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teaching of Kuo before him/her to try each of these predicable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success one of which is wherein a height of an edge of each of the first light-emitting layer (222) and the second light-emitting layer (222) adjacent to the bank (annotated FIG. 5, above) is higher than a height of a center of each of the first light-emitting layer (222) and the second light-emitting layer (222), as recited in claim 3. Please see, MPEP 2143(E)—“Obvious To Try” – Choosing From a Finite Number of Identified, Predicable Solutions, With a Reasonable Expectation of Success.
Regarding claim 4, Kuo discloses, The display device (2) of claim 3, wherein the first light-emitting layer (222) and the second light-emitting layer (222) are formed through a solution process.3
Regarding claim 7, Kuo discloses, The display device (2) of claim 3, wherein the first pixel electrode (2243 and 2244) reflects light, and the second pixel electrode (2244) transmits light.4
Regarding claim 8, Kuo discloses, The display device (2) of claim 7, wherein the first pixel electrode (2243 and 2244) has a multi-layered structure including at least one reflective electrode (2244 is made of copper [0036] which is reflective) and at least one transparent electrode (2243 is transparent ([0036]), and the second pixel electrode (2243) has a single-layered structure including a transparent electrode (2243).
Regarding claim 12, Kuo does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the pixel includes a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel, and each of the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel includes an emission area and a laser area5, and
wherein a thickness of the upper mirror layer of the second sub-pixel is smaller than a thickness of the upper mirror layer of the first sub-pixel and greater than a thickness of the upper mirror layer of the third sub-pixel.6
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teaching of Kuo before him/her that the pixel (22) of Kuo include a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel, and each of the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel includes an emission area and a laser area because these plurality of sub-pixels appear to be mere duplication of recited display device elements of the pixel and substrate which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Please see, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Also, there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding a thickness of upper mirror layer (231) of the second sub-pixel relative to a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) and the first sub-pixel and a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the third sub-pixel—i.e., a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the second sub-pixel can be: (i) the same as a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the first sub-pixel and a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the third sub-pixel, (ii) greater than a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the first sub-pixel and a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the third sub-pixel, (iii) smaller than a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the first sub-pixel and a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the third sub-pixel, (iv) greater than or equal to a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the first sub-pixel and smaller than or equal to a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the third sub-pixel, or (v) smaller than or equal to a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the first sub-pixel and greater than or equal to a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the third sub-pixel—and, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teaching of Kuo before him/her to try each of these predicable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success one of which is wherein a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the second sub-pixel is smaller than a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the first sub-pixel and greater than a thickness of the upper mirror layer (231) of the third sub-pixel, as recited in claim 12. Please see, MPEP 2143(E), above.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo, as applied to claim 3 above, in view of US 2018/0182989 A1 (Paek).
Regarding claim 5, Kuo discloses, wherein the bank (annotated FIG. 5, above) includes a first bank (annotated FIG. 5, above) and a second bank (annotated FIG. 5, above).
But, Kuo does not appear to explicitly disclose, that the first bank is of a hydrophilic property and the second back is of a hydrophobic property.
However, in analogous art, Paek discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a spreadability of a solution for a light emitting layer (light emitting layer 500; Fig. 2; [0038]) may be improved by a first bank (first bank (410); FIG. 2; [0038]) having hydrophilic properties (0065). Paek also discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a second back (second bank (420); FIG. 2; [0038]) which has hydrophobic properties prevents a solution for light emitting layer (500) from spreading to adjoining sub pixels so that it is possible to prevent light emitting layer (500) from being mixed together in the adjoining sub pixels ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kuo and Paek before him/her that a first bank (annotated FIG. 5, above) of Kuo includes a hydrophilic property, as taught by Paek, to improve spreadability of a solution for first light-emitting layer (222), as also taught by Paek, and that second bank (annotated FIG. 5, above) includes a hydrophobic property, as additionally taught by Paek, to prevent solution for second light-emitting layer (222) from spreading to adjoining sub pixels so that it is possible to prevent second light-emitting layer (222) from being mixed together in any adjoining sub pixels, as further taught by Paek.
Regarding claim 6, Kuo in view of Paek discloses, The display device (2) of claim 5, wherein the pixel (22) includes a plurality of sub-pixels (sub-pixels (22A and 22B); FIG. 5; [0022] of Kuo), and the first light-emitting layer (222) and the second light-emitting layer (222) adjacent to each other along a direction (annotated FIG. 5, above) are connected to each other (common electrode (annotated FIG. 8, above) connects first and second light-emitting layers (222) to each other) and are one body.7
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo, as applied to claim 1 above, in view US 2023/0301153 A1 (Tak) and further in view of US 2024/0268196 A1 (Shi).
Regarding claim 11, Kuo does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the lower mirror layer includes a first lower refractive index layer and a second lower refractive index layer having different refractive indexes and alternately stacked,
wherein the upper mirror layer includes a first upper refractive index layer and a second upper refractive index layer having different refractive indexes and alternately stacked, and
wherein a difference between the refractive indexes of the first lower refractive index layer and the second lower refractive index layer is greater than a difference between the refractive indexes of the first upper refractive index layers and the second upper refractive index layer.
However, in analogous art Tak discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a mirror layer (mirror layer (400); FIG. 1; [0069]) of a display device ([0002]) may be predicably fabricated to include a first refractive index layer (first refractive index layer (410); FIG. 1; [0069]) and a second refractive index layer (second refractive index layer (420); FIG. 1; [0069]).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tak also discloses that first refractive index layer (410) and second refractive index layer (420) may be predicably fabricated to have different refractive indexes ([0069]) and that they are alternatively stacked (FIG. 1). Tak additionally discloses that the alternatively stacked structure of first refractive index layer (410) and second refractive index layer (420) which have different refractive indexes from each other increases light output efficiency ([0070]) of mirror layer (400).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kuo and Tak before him/her that the lower mirror layer (24) of Kuo include a first lower refractive index layer and a second lower refractive index layer having different refractive indexes and alternately stacked, as taught by Tak, to increase light output efficiency of lower mirror layer (24) of Kuo, as also taught by Tak, and that the upper mirror layer (231) of Kuo include a first upper refractive index layer and a second upper refractive index layer having different refractive indexes and alternately stacked, as additionally taught by Tak, to increase light output efficiency of upper mirror layer (231) of Kuo, as further taught by Tak.
But, the combination of Kuo in view of Tak does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein a difference between the refractive indexes of the first lower refractive index layer and the second lower refractive index layer is greater than a difference between the refractive indexes of the first upper refractive index layers and the second upper refractive index layer.
However, in analogous art, Shi discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a display device (FIG. 6) can be predicably fabricated to include a first display area (FIG. 6; e.g., an emission area) and a second display area (FIG. 6; e.g., a laser area). Shi also discloses that first display area (FIG. 6) can be predicably fabricated to include a refraction layer (refraction layer (61); FIG. 6; [0091]) and a refraction layer (refraction layer (62); FIG. 6; [0091]). Shi additionally discloses that refraction layer (61) of the first display area can be predicably fabricated to have a greater refractive index than refraction layer (62) of the second display area which reduces the difference in the proportion of display lights undergoing total reflection in the first display area and the second display area thereby compensating the luminance attenuation amplitude in an oblique viewing angle direction of the first display area, and improving display uniformity of the first display area and the second display area in the oblique viewing angle direction ([0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Kuo, Tak, and Shi before him/her that a difference between the refractive indexes of the first lower refractive index layer and the second lower refractive index layer of Kuo in view of Tak is greater than a difference between the refractive indexes of the first upper refractive index layers and the second upper refractive index layer of Kuo in view of Tak, as taught by Shi, to reduce the difference in the proportion of lights of display (2) that undergo total reflection between the stack layers of lower mirror (24) and the stacked layers of upper mirror (231) of Kuo in view of Tak, as also taught by Shi, thereby compensating the luminance attenuation amplitude in an oblique viewing angle direction of the emission area of Kuo in view of Tak, as additionally taught by Shi, and improving display uniformity of the emission area and the laser area of Kuo in view of Tak, in the oblique viewing angle direction, as further taught by Shi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0384707 A1 (Tanaka)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a display device may be predicably formed to include depressed portion in a substrate (11) in which a lower mirror layer (41) is disposed (FIG. 1). Also discloses a first light-emitting diode (20) and an upper mirror layer (42) (FIG. 1).
US 2005/0056856 A1 (Yamazaki)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a laser oscillator for a laser area includes a substrate (501) having a depressed portion with a lower reflective film ([0054]) constituting a lower mirror layer, an upper mirror layer (509), and a light-emitting element (503) (FIG. 4). Also discloses that an optical resonator is formed by lower mirror layer and upper mirror layer (509) ([0054]).
US 2017/0229096 A1 (Huang)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a laser area may be predicably fabricated in a light-emitting unit (20) through the use of a laser chip ([0030]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Please see the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this language is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
2 Please see the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this language is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
3 Claim 4 is a product-by-process claim. Please see, MPEP 2173.05(p)(I). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Please see, MPEP 2113(I).
4 Please see, MPEP 2114(II)—Manner Of Operating The Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim From The Prior Art. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
5 Please see the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this language is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
6 Please see the objection to this language, above.
7 Please see the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this language is being interpreted for purpose of examination.