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 November 13, 2023 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “vicinities of both ends of the support substrate in the bending axis direction” with reference numerals. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: “vicinities of both ends of the support substrate in the bending axis direction” recited in claim 17 must be described with reference numerals in the specification. Appropriate correction is required. No new matter may be added.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 3, “the entire periphery of the frame region” should be “an entire periphery of the frame region”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 3, “the bendable portions” should be “the bendable portion”. 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 6, 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, lines 2-4 recite, “wherein the adhesive layer includes a pair of openings formed in portions closer to the bendable portion in the frame region provided in peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively”. 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 meaning of the recitation of the bendable portion in the frame region provided in peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively is unclear because claim 1 (from which claim 6 depends via claim 3) recites that the bendable portion is part of the display region, not part of the frame region. As another example, it is unclear how the bendable portion is provided in peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively because claim 1 (from which claim 6 depends via claim 3) recites that the bendable portion is disposed between the pair of flat portions, not in the peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-4 of claim 6 as reciting: “wherein the adhesive layer includes a pair of openings formed in portions closer to the bendable portion” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 8, lines 2-4 recite, “wherein the metal film layer includes a pair of openings formed in portions closer to the bendable portion in the frame region provided in peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively”. 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 meaning of the recitation of “the bendable portion in the frame region provided in peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively” is unclear because claim 1 (from which claim 8 depends) recites that the bendable portion is part of the display region, not part of the frame region. As another example, it is unclear how the bendable portion is provided in the peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively because claim 1 (from which claim 8 depends) recites that the bendable portion is disposed between the pair of flat portions, not in the peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-4 of claim 8 as reciting: “wherein the metal film layer includes a pair of openings formed in portions closer to the bendable portion” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 15, lines 2-3 recite, “wherein a portion of the support substrate overlapping the bendable portion in a plan view is formed in a slotted shape, a lattice shape, a chain shape, or a living hinge shape.” 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 meaning of the recitation of “a living hinge shape” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning (paragraph [0117] of the Application describes “a living hinge shape” as “a lot shape”, which is also unclear), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-3 of claim 15 as reciting: “wherein a portion of the support substrate overlapping the bendable portion in a plan view is formed in a slotted shape, a lattice shape, or a chain shape” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 17, lines 2-4 recite, ”wherein the at least one opening is formed in a slit shape extending along a bending axis of the bendable portion to vicinities of both ends of the support substrate in the bending axis direction.” 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 meaning of the recitation of “to vicinities of both ends of the support substrate in the bending axis direction” is unclear because the extent of such “vicinities” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-4 of claim 17 as reciting: “wherein the at least one opening is formed in a slit shape extending along a bending axis of the bendable portion to of both ends of the support substrate in the bending axis direction” 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0192527 A1 (Yun).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses, A display device (FIG. 1) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
715
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a flexible display panel (flexible display panel (100); FIG. 1; [0031]) including
a display region including a pair of flat portions (flat portions (N/F); FIG. 1; [0031]) held in a flat manner (annotated FIG. 1, above) and a bendable portion (bendable portion (F/A); FIG. 1; [0031]) disposed between the pair of flat portions (N/F) and held in a bendable manner (annotated FIG. 1, above) and
a frame region (frame region (1000 and/or 1100); FIG. 1; [0031]) provided in a periphery of the display region (annotated FIG. 1, above);
a support substrate (support substrate (203); FIG. 1; [0044]) supporting the display panel (100) in a flat manner (first annotated FIG. 3, below); and
PNG
media_image2.png
548
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a housing (housing (1000); FIGs. 1 and 3; [0031]) supporting the support substrate (203) (first annotated FIG. 3, above),
wherein in the display region (first annotated FIG. 3, above), the display panel (100) and the support substrate (203) are not fixed to each other (first annotated FIG. 3, above) and a gap (first annotated FIG. 3, above) is formed between the support substrate (203) and the housing (1000),
a metal film layer (metal film layer (202); FIG. 1; [0044]; [0037]) is provided between the display panel (100) and the support substrate (203), and
the metal film layer (202) and the support substrate (203) are not fixed to each other in a region overlapping the display region in a plan view (first annotated FIG. 3, above).
Regarding claim 3, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein an adhesive layer (adhesive layer (111, 112, 113 and/or 114); FIG. 3; [0069], [0079], [0084] and/or [0085]) is provided between the display panel (100) and the support substrate (203) along the entire periphery of the frame region (1000 and/or 1100) (second annotated FIG. 3, below), and
the display panel (100) and the support substrate (203) are adhesively fixed to each other via the adhesive layer (111, 112, 113 and/or 114).
PNG
media_image3.png
526
797
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 3,
wherein the adhesive layer (111, 112, 113 and/or 114) includes a pair of openings formed in a portion where a bendable region (second annotated FIG. 3, above) extending along the bendable portion (F/A) and the frame region (1000 and/or 1100) overlap each other in a plan view (second annotated FIG. 3, above).
Regarding claim 5, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 4,
wherein the pair of openings (second annotated FIG. 3, above) are formed in a slit shape (second annotated FIG. 3, above) extending along a bending axis (annotated FIG. 1, above) of the bendable region (second annotated FIG. 3, above).
Regarding claim 6, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 3,
wherein the adhesive layer (111, 112, 113 and/or 114) includes a pair of openings (third annotated FIG. 3, below) formed in portions closer to the bendable portion (F/A) in the frame region provided in peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively1, and
the pair of openings (third annotated FIG. 3, below) are formed in a slit shape (third annotated FIG. 3, below) extending along a bending axis (annotated FIG. 1, above) of the bendable portion (F/A).
PNG
media_image4.png
512
695
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein the metal film layer (202) includes a pair of openings (pair of openings (2012); FIG. 4; [0038] and (2012b); FIG. 3; [0048]) formed in portions closer to the bendable portions (F/A) in the frame region provided in peripheries of the pair of flat portions, respectively2, and
the pair of openings (2012 and 2012b) are formed in a slit shape (annotated FIG. 4, below) extending along the bending axis (annotated FIG. 1, above) of the bendable portion (F/A).
PNG
media_image5.png
582
691
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein an adhesive layer (111, 112, 113 and/or 114) is provided between the display panel (100) and the metal film layer (202) (FIG. 3), and
the display panel (100) and the metal film (202) layer are adhesively fixed to each other via the adhesive layer (111, 112, 113 and/or 114).
Regarding claim 15, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein a portion of the support substrate (203) overlapping the bendable portion (F/A) in a plan view is formed in a slotted shape (slotted shape (2012c); FIG.3; [0050]; annotated FIG. 4, above), a lattice shape, a chain shape, or a living hinge shape3.
Regarding claim 16, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein the support substrate (203) includes at least one opening (opening (2012c); FIG. 3; [0050]; annotated FIG. 4, above) formed in a portion overlapping the bendable portion (F/A) in a plan view (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 16,
wherein the at least one opening (2012c) is formed in a slit shape extending along a bending axis (annotated FIG. 1, above) of the bendable portion (F/A) to vicinities of both ends of the support substrate in the bending axis direction4 (annotated FIG. 1, above).
Regarding claim 18, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein the support substrate (203) includes a flexible metal film ([0044] and [0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 18,
wherein the support substrate (203) is formed of a layered body further including a flexile resin film (first annotated FIG. 3, above; [0007]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun.
Regarding claim 2, Yun discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein the gap (first annotated FIG. 3, above) is formed between the support substrate (203) and the housing (1000).
But, Yun does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the display panel and the support substrate are not fixed to each other in the entirety of the display region.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yun before him/her, would have recognized that there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding fixation of the display panel and the support substrate in the display region of Yun—i.e., (i) the display panel and the support substrate are fixed to each other in the entirety of the display region, (ii) the display panel and the support substrate are fixed to each other in a portion of the display region, or (iii) the display panel and the support substrate are not fixed to each other in the entirety of the display region, and, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try each of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, one of which is: wherein the display panel (100) and the support substrate (203) are not fixed to each other in the entirety of the display region (annotated FIG. 1, above) of Yun, as recited in claim 2. See, MPEP 2143(E)—“Obvious To Try”—Choosing From A Finite Number Of Identified, Predicably Solutions, With A Reasonable Expectation Of Success.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of US 2021/0132662 A1 (Cavallaro).
Regarding claim 10, Yun does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the metal film layer is formed of a material containing at least one selected from stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, and copper.
However, in analogous art, Cavallaro discloses, that it is well-known that a bendable and foldable display device (display device (105); FIG. 1; [0054] and [0059]) may be predicably fabricated to include a flexible metal film layer ([0059]) containing stainless steel ([0059]). Cavallaro also discloses that stainless steel exhibits shape memory properties ([0106]).
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 Yun and Cavallaro before him/her, that the metal film layer (202) of Yun could be predicable fabricated from a material containing at least stainless steel, as taught by Cavallaro, so that metal film layer (202) of Yun exhibits shape memory properties, as also taught by Cavallaro.
Regarding claim 19, Yun does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the metal film layer is formed of a material containing at least one selected from stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, and copper.
However, in analogous art, Cavallaro discloses, that it is well-known that a bendable and foldable display device (display device (105); FIG. 1B; [0054] and [0059]) may be predicably fabricated to include a flexible metal film layer ([0059]) containing stainless steel ([0059]). Cavallaro also discloses that stainless steel exhibits shape memory properties ([0106]).
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 Yun and Cavallaro before him/her, that the metal film layer (203) of Yun could be predicable fabricated from a material containing at least stainless steel, as taught by Cavallaro, so that metal film layer (203) of Yun exhibits shape memory properties, as also taught by Cavallaro.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of US 2019/0073505 A1 (Kwon).
Regarding claim 11, Yun does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein a cushion layer is provided between the metal film layer and the support substrate, and
the cushion layer and the support substrate are not fixed to each other in a region overlapping the display region in a plan view.
However, in analogous art, Kwon discloses that it is well-known that a display device (FIG. 8) having a (display region (30); FIG. 8; [0050]) may be predicably fabricated to include a cushion layer (cushion layer (41); FIG. 8; [0061]) between a metal film layer (metal film layer (43); FIG. 8; [0061] and [0071]) and a support substrate (support substrate (31); FIG. 4; [0061]). Kwon also discloses that display device (30) may be predicably fabrication so that cushion layer (41) and support substrate (31) are not fixed to each other in a region overlapping a display region (30) in a plan view (annotated FIG. 8, below). Kwon additionally discloses that cushion layer (41) may reduce external impacts applied to display region (30) ([0069]).
PNG
media_image6.png
642
673
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Yun and Kwon before him/her, that the display device (Fig. 1) of Yun include a cushion layer provided between metal film layer (202) and support substrate (203) of Yun, as taught by Kwon, and that the cushion layer and the support substrate (203) are not fixed to each other in a region overlapping the display region (annotated FIG. 1 and/or first annotated FIG. 3, both above), as also taught by Kwon, so that the cushion layer may reduce external impacts applied to the display region (annotated FIG. 1 and/or first annotated FIG. 3, both above), as additionally taught by Kwon.
Regarding claim 12, Yun in view of Kwon discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 11,
wherein an adhesive layer (adhesive layer (80); FIG. 8; [0113], all of Kwon) is provided between the metal film layer (202) and the cushion layer (41), and
the metal film layer (202) and the cushion layer (41) are adhesively fixed to each other via the adhesive layer (80).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Kwon, as applied to claim 11, above, and further in view of US 2021/0333934 A1 (Kishimoto).
Regarding claim 13, Yun in view of Kwon does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the cushion layer includes at least one layer selected from a flexible resin film layer, a graphite layer, and a foam layer.
However, in analogous art, Kishimoto discloses, that a cushion layer (cushion layer (50); FIG. 4A; [0083]) of a flexible display device (display device (1); FIG. 4A; [0059]) may be predicably formed of a foam resin ([0118)). Kishimoto also discloses that cushion layer (50) provides a cushioning function ([0118]).
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 Yun, Kwon, and Kishimoto before him/her, that cushion layer (41) of Yun in view of Kwon includes at least one layer selected from a flexible resin film layer, a graphite sheet layer, and a foam layer, as taught by Kishimoto, to provide a cushioning function, as also taught by Kishimoto.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Kwon, as applied to claim 11, above, and further in view of US 2017/0263891 A1 (Oh).
Regarding claim 14, Yun in view of Kwon does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein Young’s modulus of the cushion layer is 1 GPa or less.
However, in analogous art, Oh discloses, that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a flexible display device (flexible display device 710); FIG. 7; [0091]) may be predicably formed to include a cushion layer (cushion layer (723); FIG. 7; [0092]) having a Young’s modulus of about 10 MPa or less ([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 Yun, Kwon, and Oh before him/her, that the Young’s modulus of the cushion layer (41) of Yun in view of Kwon is 1 GPa or less, as taught by Oh, because the claimed range of a Young’s modulus of 1GPa or less overlaps with the range of about 10 MPa or less disclosed by Oh. See, MPEP 2144.05(I)—Overlapping, Approaching, And Similar Ranges, Amounts, And Proportions—"In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
US 2018/0183001 A1 (Lee)—Discloses that it is well-known that a bendable and foldable display device (display device (100); FIG. 1B; [0037] and [0040]) may be predicably fabricated to include a metal film layer (metal film layer (160); FIG. 1B; [0053]) disposed in a bending area (bending area (B/A); FIG. 1B; [0043]). Lee also discloses that metal film layer (160) may be predicably fabricated from a material containing at least two or more of aluminum, titanium, copper, and molybdenum ([0054]). Lee additionally discloses a metal layer fabricated from this material has excellent conductivity due to low contact resistance while maintaining sufficient flexibility ([0054]).
US 2010/0259368 A1 (Fahn)—Discloses that it is well-known to include a cushion layer (cushion layer (306); FIG. 3; [0027]) beneath a display panel (display panel (308); FIG. 3; [0028]).
US 2019/0130796 A1 (Kang)—Discloses that it is well-known that a display device (FIG. 2) can be predicably formed to include an adhesive layer (adhesive layer (250); FIG. 2; [0046] provided between a display panel (display panel (100); FIG. 2; [0039]) and a support substrate (support substrate (200); FIG. 2; [0039]) along an entire periphery of the frame region of display panel (100).
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 6 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 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this language is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
3 Please see the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this language is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
4 Please see the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this language is being interpreted for purpose of examination.