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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-15, 17-19 and 21 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ye et al. (US 20220336766 A1).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wavelength conversion layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 20220336766 A1) in view of Hamer et al. (US 20210159462 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ye discloses a display panel (DA), comprising a plurality of light emitting devices arranged in an array (per [0025]), wherein each of the plurality of light emitting devices comprises:
a first electrode (EL1); ([0074], Fig. 5A)
a first light emitting layer (BEML-1) on the first electrode; ([0129], Fig. 5A)
a second light emitting layer (BEML-2) on a side of the first light emitting layer (BEML-1) away from the first electrode (EL1); ([0130], Fig. 5A)
a third light emitting layer (BEML-31) on a side of the second light emitting layer (BEML-2) away from the first electrode (EL1); ([0131], Fig. 5A)
a fourth light emitting layer (BEML-32) on a side of the third light emitting layer (BEML-31) away from the first electrode (EL1); ([0131], Fig. 5A)
a fifth light emitting layer (GEML) on a side of the fourth light emitting layer (BEML-32) away from the first electrode (EL1); ([0138], Fig. 5A) and
a second electrode (EL2) on a side of the fifth light emitting layer (GEML) away from the first electrode (EL1), ([0074], Fig. 5A) wherein:
four light emitting layers (starting with BEML) among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit light having a first wavelength (blue light); ([0129]-[0131], Fig. 5A) and
a remaining light emitting layer (GEML), other than the four light emitting layers (BEML) emitting the light having the first wavelength among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emits light having a second wavelength (green light), wherein the first wavelength (blue light), is smaller than the second wavelength (green light). ([0138], Fig. 5A)
wherein the display panel further comprises a wavelength conversion layer (CCL) on a side of the second electrode (EL2) away from the first electrode (EL1), a material of the wavelength conversion layer (CCL) comprising quantum dots; ([0096], Fig. 4A)
wherein the light having the first wavelength is blue light, and the light having the second wavelength is green light; ([0129]-[0131], [0138], Fig. 5A) and
wherein the wavelength conversion layer (CCL) is configured to convert the blue light emitted by the four light emitting layers into green light such that the converted green light and the green light emitted by the remaining light emitting layer are superposed to serve as an output green light of the display panel; and/or the wavelength conversion layer is configured to convert the blue light emitted by the four light emitting layers and the green light emitted by the remaining light emitting layer into red light to serve as an output red light of the display panel. ([0080], Fig. 4A)
Ye does not explicitly disclose:
a microcavity is formed between the first electrode and the second electrode;
However, Hamer discloses:
a microcavity (95) is formed between the first electrode (54) and the second electrode (90); ([0060], Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ye and Hamer to have a microcavity is formed between the first electrode and the second electrode in order to have “increased blue emission” for “high brightness and long operational lifetime.” (Hamer, abstract/[0003])
Regarding claim 2, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 1. Hamer does not explicitly disclose wherein the light having the first wavelength emitted by the four light emitting layers forms a first standing wave in the light emitting device, and the light having the second wavelength emitted by the remaining light emitting layer forms a second standing wave in the light emitting device.
However, Hamer does disclose:
“One well-known method of increasing the luminance and color purity of OLED emission is by taking advantage of the optical microcavity effect. This effect is based on creating an optical resonator between a reflecting surface and a semi-reflective surface which allows some light to pass. Multiple reflections between the two surfaces create standing waves, depending on optical distance between the two surfaces, which will intensify some wavelengths of light and decrease others because of constructive and destructive interference effects that will occur depending on whether the emissions are generated at the anti-nodes or nodes, respectively, of the standing waves. The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light having the first wavelength emitted by the four light emitting layers forms a first standing wave in the light emitting device, and the light having the second wavelength emitted by the remaining light emitting layer forms a second standing wave in the light emitting device, since it was known in the art that “multiple reflections between the two surfaces create standing waves” (Hamer, [0009]) see MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 3, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not explicitly disclose wherein a first distance from a first surface of the first electrode close to the first light emitting layer to a surface of the first light emitting layer on a side away from the first electrode is less than 500 A.
However, Hamer does disclose:
“for blue light, higher intensities are predicted closer to the anode” In [0047].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a first distance from a first surface of the first electrode close to the first light emitting layer to a surface of the first light emitting layer on a side away from the first electrode is less than 500 A, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 because “there exists a need for a white light-emitting OLED formulation with increased blue emission that would be suitable for use in a micro-display. A white light-emitting microcavity OLED with at least two blue-emitting layers can provide increased blue emission. Depending on the size of the microcavity, the spacing of the blue light-emitting layers relative to each other as well as to the reflective surface of the microcavity can be important to achieve high blue emission.” (Hamer, [0021])
Regarding claim 4, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the first light emitting layer emits green light
However, Ye discloses:
wherein the second light emitting layer the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer (BEML(1,2,31,32)) emit blue light and the first light emitting layer (GEML) emits green light. (Fig. 5D)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hamer and ye for the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the first light emitting layer emits green light since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 so as to have “a light emitting device having increased luminous efficiency and device lifespan.” (Ye, [0006])
Regarding claim 5, Ye discloses the display panel according to claim 4. Ye does not explicitly disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regrading claim 6, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not explicitly disclose wherein the first light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the second light emitting layer emits green light.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hamer and Ye for the first light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the second light emitting layer emits green light since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regarding claim 7, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 6. Hamer does not disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regarding claim 8, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2, wherein the first light emitting layer (BLEL1), the second light emitting layer (BLEL2), the third light emitting layer (BLEL3) and the fifth light emitting layer (BLEL4) emit blue light, and the fourth light emitting layer (76) emits green light. ([0097], Fig. 8)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ye and Hamer for similar reason mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 9, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 8. Hamer does not disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, and the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the fourth light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, and the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, and the fourth light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regarding claim 10, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, and the fourth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the fifth light emitting layer emits green light.
However, Ye discloses:
wherein the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, and the fourth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the fifth light emitting layer emits green light. (Fig. 5A)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hamer and Ye for the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, and the fourth light emitting layer emit blue light, and the fifth light emitting layer emits green light since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 so as to have “a light emitting device having increased luminous efficiency and device lifespan.” (Ye, [0006])
Regarding claim 11, Ye discloses the display panel according to claim 10. Ye does not disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, and the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, and the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the first light emitting layer is located at a first antinode of the first standing wave, the second light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the first standing wave, and the third light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, and the fifth light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Regarding claim 12, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein a second distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to 5 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the first standing wave or 4 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the second standing wave; or wherein a second distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to 6 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the first standing wave or 5 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer does disclose:
“emitting layers according to the emission wavelength should be located at specific distances (i.e. at the antinodes) between the defining surfaces of the microcavity in order to maximize the microcavity effect that increases efficiency.” In [0044] and
“In the OLED microcavity 95 in FIG. 5, the physical distance L0 from the reflective surface to the semi-transparent second electrode is constant throughout the entire active light-emitting area.” in [0063] and “An OLED microcavity device 300 (similar to FIG. 5) is shown in FIG. 7” in [0095].
The examiner believes because there are 5 light emitting layers between the first and second electrodes then one ordinarily skilled in the art could determine “a second distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to 5 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the first standing wave” through routine experimentation and the fact that the prior art discloses the distance between the reflective surface to the semi-transparent second electrode is constant throughout the entire active light-emitting area. Similarly, one could determine the other optional distances through routine experimentation based on the prior art disclosure and therefore the examiner has met the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a second distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to 5 times a distance between two adjacent antinodes of the first standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as to “maximize the microcavity effect that increases efficiency” (Hamer, [0044])
Regarding claim 13, Hamer discloses the display panel according to claim 2. Hamer does not disclose wherein a first distance from a first surface of the first electrode close to the first light emitting layer to a surface of the first light emitting layer on a side away from the first electrode is greater than 1200 A.
However, Hamer does disclose:
“The multimodal light-emitting microcavity OLED can have two different ranges for the distance L.sub.0; the first range where the distance L.sub.0 is in the range of 6500-7800 Å and a second range where the distance L.sub.0 is in the range of 8000-9000 Å.” In [0024] and
“In the OLED microcavity 95 in FIG. 5, the physical distance L0 from the reflective surface to the semi-transparent second electrode is constant throughout the entire active light-emitting area.” in [0063] and “An OLED microcavity device 300 (similar to FIG. 5) is shown in FIG. 7” in [0095].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a first distance from a first surface of the first electrode close to the first light emitting layer to a surface of the first light emitting layer on a side away from the first electrode is greater than 1200 A with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as to “maximize the microcavity effect that increases efficiency” (Hamer, [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, Ye discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer, and the fifth light emitting layer emit (BEML(1,2,31,32)) blue light (per [0129-0131]), and the first light emitting layer (GEML) emits green light (per [0138]). (Fig. 5D)
Regarding claim 15, Ye discloses the display panel according to claim 14. Ye does not disclose wherein a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the second light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a sixth antinode of the first standing wave, and the first light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the second standing wave.
However, Hamer discloses:
“The anti-nodes occur at different locations depending on the total space between the reflectors, and on the wavelength being optimized. Optical models based on mathematical calculations can be useful in determining the ideal emitter positions for a given structure” in [0009] and “As the optical thickness of the microcavity is increased compared to the wavelength of light in the organic medium, there can be multiple anti-nodes for a particular color within the microcavity” in [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for a surface of the first electrode facing the first light emitting layer serves as a reference surface, the second light emitting layer is located at a third antinode of the first standing wave, the third light emitting layer is located at a fourth antinode of the first standing wave, the fourth light emitting layer is located at a fifth antinode of the first standing wave, the fifth light emitting layer is located at a sixth antinode of the first standing wave, and the first light emitting layer is located at a second antinode of the second standing wave with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as “to utilize multiple emitters of the same spectrum in order to meet the desired output requirements for a particular use. The multiple emitters could be used by themselves to make an extremely bright monochrome display, or it could be used with other emitters to produce a balanced white display.” (Hamer, [0011])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hamer for the light emitting layer emitting light having the second wavelength among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer has a thickness in a range of 300 A to 350 A with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) so as to “maximize the microcavity effect that increases efficiency” (Hamer, [0044]).
Regarding claim 17, Ye discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein each of the four light emitting layers (BEML(1,2,31,32)) emitting light having the first wavelength (blue per [0129-0131]) among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer has a thickness in a range of 200 A to 250 A (per [0132]) and the light emitting layer (GEML) emitting light having the second wavelength (green per [0138]) among the first light emitting layer, the second light emitting layer, the third light emitting layer, the fourth light emitting layer and the fifth light emitting layer has a thickness in a range of 300 A to 350 A (per [0141]). (Fig. 5A)
Regarding claim 18, Ye discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of light emitting devices further comprises a first charge generating layer (CGL1) between the first light emitting layer (BEML1) and the second light emitting layer (BEML2), a second charge generating layer (CGL2) between the second light emitting layer (BEML2) and the third light emitting layer (BEML31), and a fourth charge generating layer (CGL3) between the fourth light emitting layer (BEML-32) and the fifth light emitting layer (GEML). ([0120], Fig. 5A)
Ye does not disclose:
a third charge generating layer between the third light emitting layer and the fourth light emitting layer.
However, Hamer discloses:
a third charge generating layer (72) between the third light emitting layer (68) and the fourth light emitting layer (76).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ye and Hamer to have a third charge generating layer between the third light emitting layer and the fourth light emitting layer in order to “minimize voltage increase when using multiple LEL stacks” (Hamer, [0099])
Regarding claim 19, Ye discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein at least one light emitting layer in the plurality of light emitting devices comprises one or two layers of a hole injection layer (HIL) and a hole transport layer (HTL) which are on a side close to the first electrode (EL1), and one or two layers of an electron transport layer (ETL) and an electron injection layer (EIL) away from the first electrode (EL1). ([0146]-[0156] Fig. 5A)
Regarding claim 21, Ye discloses a display apparatus (per [0002]), comprising the display panel according to claim 1.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY BLACKWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-1600.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/ASHLEY NICOLE BLACKWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights