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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
on line 4, “wherein the substrate including” should be “wherein the substrate includes”; and
on line 11, “upper mirror layer in in the laser area” should be “upper mirror layer in the laser area”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is 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 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.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the recited limitation of “the first light-emitting diode does not overlap with any lower mirror layer and any upper mirror layer in the emission area in a plan view of the display device.” The Examiner is unable to locate any specific discussion of this added limitation in Applicant’s originally filed specification. Also, Applicant has not provided an indication in its “Response A” filed on May 12, 2026 (hereinafter the “Response”) where such support may be found in the originally filed specification for such amended language. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant please indicate in detail where there is support for this added language in the originally filed specification in its next response or, alternatively, if there isn’t such support, then please remove this added language from claim 1.
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.
Claim 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 amended claim 1, lines 10-13 recite: “wherein the second light-emitting diode overlaps with the lower mirror layer and the upper mirror layer in in the laser area, and the first light-emitting diode does not overlap with any lower mirror layer and any upper mirror layer in the emission area in a plan view of the display device.” This recited language used to define the invention 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 recitation of “the first light-emitting diode does not overlap with any lower mirror layer and any upper mirror layer in the emission area in a plan view of the display device” makes it unclear whether there are/is a lower mirror layer and/or an upper mirror layer in the emission area in a plan view for the first light-emitting diode to not overlap with because neither an upper mirror layer nor a lower mirror layer in the emission area is recited by claim 1. Claim 1 only recites that there is a lower mirror layer and an upper mirror layer in the laser area. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 10-13 of claim 1 as reciting, “wherein the second light-emitting diode overlaps with the lower mirror layer and the upper mirror layer in in the laser area” because of this ambiguity. Claims 2-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
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); FIGs. 2 and 5; [0020]) comprising:
a substrate (substrate (3); annotated FIG. 5, below; [0036]);
a pixel (pixel (22); FIG. 5; [0020]) on the substrate (3), the pixel (22) including an emission area (annotated FIG. 5, below) and a laser area (annotated FIG. 5, below),
wherein 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) in the laser area (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) in the laser area,
wherein the second light-emitting diode (annotated FIG. 5, below) overlaps with the lower mirror layer (24) and the upper mirror layer (231) in in the laser area (annotated FIG. 5, below), and the first light-emitting diode does not overlap with any lower mirror layer and any upper mirror layer in the emission area in a plan view of the display device.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
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 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 the first light-emitting layer adjacent to the bank is higher than a height of a center of the first light-emitting layer, and wherein a height of an edge of the second light-emitting layer adjacent to the bank is higher than a height of a center of the second light-emitting layer.
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 the first light-emitting layer (222) adjacent to the bank (annotated FIG. 5, above) is higher than a height of a center of the first light-emitting layer (222), and wherein a height of an edge of the second light-emitting layer (222) adjacent to the bank (annotated FIG. 5, above) is higher than a height of a center of 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.2
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.3
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
wherein a thickness of an upper mirror layer of the second sub-pixel is smaller than a thickness of an upper mirror layer of the first sub-pixel and greater than a thickness of an upper mirror layer of the third sub-pixel.
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 because these plurality of sub-pixels appear to be mere duplication of recited display device elements of the pixel 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 an upper mirror layer (231) and the first sub-pixel and a thickness of an 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 an upper mirror layer (231) of the second sub-pixel is smaller than a thickness of an upper mirror layer (231) of the first sub-pixel and greater than a thickness of an 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) are adjacent to each other along a direction (annotated FIG. 5, above) and are connected to each other (common electrode (annotated FIG. 8, above) connects first and second light-emitting layers (222) to each other).
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 layer 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 layer 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 layer 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.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of claims 11 and 12 and remarks on page six (6) of the Response have overcome the objection thereto in the Office Action dated February 12, 2026 (hereinafter the “Office Action”). Also, Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 3, 6, and 12 and remarks on page seven (7) of the Response have overcome the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Office Action. However, please see the new rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in this Final Office Action which was necessitated by Applicant’s additional amendment of claim 1.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 and remarks on pages seven (7)-eight (8) of the Response regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuo in the Office Action have been fully considered. However, they are not deemed persuasive, as detailed above in this Final Office Action, because there does not appear to be support in Applicant’s originally filed specification for the amended recited limitation of “the first light-emitting diode does not overlap with any lower mirror layer and any upper mirror layer in the emission area in a plan view of the display device.” Also, Applicant has not provided an indication in its Response where such support may be found in the originally filed specification for such amended language. Additionally, as detailed above in this Final Office Action, this amended recited language is indefinite.
Notwithstanding the above, to advance prosecution, the Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant please consider a telephone interview with the Examiner to discuss proposed claim amendments to overcome rejection of the currently pending claims prior to submitting a written response to this Final Office Action. The Examiner would welcome such a discussion of these proposed claim amendments and is available at the number provided below.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Office 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 Office 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 Office Action.
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 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).
3 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."
Prosecution Insights