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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to a claim of foreign priority to Korean application filed on June 22nd, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on March 18th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I, directed to claims 1-17, in the reply filed on June 4th, 2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is made FINAL, claims 1-17 are being examined on their merits and all non-elected claims (i.e. claim 18-20) are withdrawn from consideration at this time.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 4 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 1 and 9 of Application No. 18/587,754. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/587,754 (Yoo et al.) in view of Park et al. (US10811623B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1;
Yoo et al. teaches a display device comprising: a first substrate having a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface extending between the first surface and the second surface (e.g. “A display device comprising: a first substrate comprising … a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface between the first surface and the second surface…”), the first substrate comprises a rigid material (e.g. “…a first substrate comprising a rigid material…”); a second substrate on the first surface of the first substrate and comprising a flexible material (e.g. “…a second substrate comprising a flexible material…”), the second substrate covering at least a part of the first side surface of the first substrate; and an emission material layer on the second substrate and comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements (e.g. “…an emission material layer comprising light-emitting elements on the second substrate.”).
Claim 1 (18/608616) filed on 3/18/2024
Claim 1 (18/587754) filed on 2/26/2024
A display device comprising:
a first substrate comprising a rigid material, and comprising a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface between the first surface and the second surface;
a protective layer on the first surface;
a second substrate comprising a flexible material on the protective layer;
and an emission material layer comprising light-emitting elements on the second substrate.
A display device comprising:
a first substrate having a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface extending between the first surface and the second surface, the first substrate comprises a rigid material;
a second substrate on the first surface of the first substrate and comprising a flexible material, the second substrate covering at least a part of the first side surface of the first substrate;
and an emission material layer on the second substrate and comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements.
Yoo et al. is silent to a protective layer on the first surface as claimed.
However, Park et al. teaches a protective layer structure (e.g. Fig. 5 ref PF1+DF1) disposed on a bottom surface of a flexible substrate (e.g. Detailed description [0071] “A protection film PF1 having flexibility may be disposed under the substrate SUB. A dummy film DF1 having flexibility may be disposed under the protection film PF1.”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to form a protective film structure taught in Park et al. between the first and second substrates taught in Yoo et al. because the protective film structure was a known structure which performs the predictable result of improving the bend resilience and impact resistance of a display device (e.g. Detailed description [0101] “…display apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment has a structure that strengthens the bending area BA and absorbs external impacts applied to the bending area BA, thereby preventing the bending area BA from being damaged.”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/587,754 in view of Park et al. (US10811623B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 4;
Yoo et al. teaches that the first substrate has an opening exposing the second substrate (e.g. “…the first substrate defines an opening…in the bending area.”).
Claim 4 (18/608616) filed on 3/18/2024
Claim 9 (18/587754) filed on 2/262024
The display device of claim 2,
wherein the first substrate defines an opening exposing the protective layer in the bending area.
The display device of claim 1,
wherein the first substrate has an opening exposing the second substrate.
Yoo et al. is silent to a protective layer on the first surface, and subsequently to the opening exposing a protective layer in the bending area as claimed.
However, Park et al. teaches a protective layer structure (e.g. Fig. 5 ref PF1+DF1) extending across a bending area (e.g. Fig. 5 ref BA) through an opening (e.g. Fig. 5 ref OP1).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art that the device claimed in Yoo et al. with the inclusion of the protective film structure taught in Park et al. (e.g. see claim 1 NSDP rejection) would have an opening which exposes a protective layer in a bending area.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1-7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)2 as being anticipated by Ishida et al. (US10461270B2).
Regarding claim 1;
Ishida et al. teaches A display device (e.g. Fig. 1 ref 1, Detailed description [0024] “FIG. 1 is a sectional view of an organic EL display device according to a first embodiment …”) comprising: a first substrate comprising a rigid material, and comprising a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface between the first surface and the second surface (e.g. Fig. 1 ref 8, Detailed description [0058] “Note that the organic EL display panel 30 is flexible, and the organic EL display device 1 is configured not to bend at other portions than the bending portion 27 due to the rigid housing 8 exhibiting stiffness.”); a protective layer on the first surface (e.g. Fig. 1 ref 7, Detailed description [0055] “The inorganic layers 6, 7 are for ensuring barrier performance against moisture to prevent deterioration of the organic EL element (4).”); a second substrate comprising a flexible material on the protective layer (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 10, Detailed description [0027] “The plastic substrate 10 is a film-shaped substrate exhibiting flexibility…”); and an emission material layer comprising light-emitting elements on the second substrate (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 4, 15R, 15G, 15B; Detailed description [0028] “the organic EL display panel 30 has a display region 15 where the organic EL elements 4 are arrayed. In the display region 15, the organic EL elements 4 are formed and arranged in a matrix on a plastic-substrate-10-side surface. Moreover, in the display region 15, a display region 15R configured to emit red light, a display region 15G configured to emit green light, and a display region 15B configured to emit blue light are arrayed according to a predetermined pattern.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
519
1132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
750
1000
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2;
Ishida et al. further teaches that the first side surface is at an edge in a bending area where the second substrate is bent (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 3;
Ishida et al. further teaches that the first substrate is not in the bending area (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 4;
Ishida et al. further teaches that the first substrate defines an opening exposing the protective layer in the bending area (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 5;
Ishida et al. teaches that the first side surface is an inclined surface extending in a direction that is different from a direction in which the first surface extends (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 6;
Ishida et al. further teaches that an entirety of the first surface directly contacts the protective layer (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 7;
Ishida et al. further teaches that the first surface and the first side surface directly contact each other (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 15;
Ishida et al. further teaches that the second substrate comprises (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 30, Detailed description [0031] “the organic EL display panel 30 includes…”): a first subsidiary substrate on the protective layer (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 10, Detailed description [0027] “The plastic substrate 10 is a film-shaped substrate exhibiting flexibility and made of a resin material exhibiting insulating properties, and an organic material such as polyimide resin or acrylic resin can be used as the resin material forming the plastic substrate 10.”); a barrier layer on the first subsidiary substrate (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 21, Detailed description [0035] “The interlayer insulating film 21 is formed on the plastic substrate 10…”); and a second subsidiary substrate on the barrier layer (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 20, Detailed description [0050]-[0051] “The plastic substrate 20 is a film-shaped substrate exhibiting flexibility and made of a resin material exhibiting insulating properties, and an organic material such as polyimide resin or acrylic resin can be used as the resin material forming the plastic substrate 20… Moreover, the plastic substrate 20 includes a color filter 45 having multiple colored layers colored in red, green, or blue and a black matrix provided adjacent to each colored layer.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
750
1000
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US10461270B2) in view of Namkung et al. (US9811120B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 8;
Ishida et al. is silent to the first substrate having an inclined surface extending in a direction that is different from directions in which the first surface and the first side surface extend is not between the first surface and the first side surface as claimed.
However, Namkung et al. teaches display device including a first substrate (e.g. Fig. 6A ref P1) with inclined portions (e.g. Fig. 6A ref IS1-IS2, Detailed description [0088]-[0090] “The groove pattern GP includes a first inclined portion SL1 and a second inclined portion SL2. The first inclined portion SL1 is spaced apart from the second inclined portion SL2 in the first direction D1. The first inclined portion SL1 includes a first surface IS1. The first surface IS1 is inclined at a first inclined angle θ1 with respect to a surface of the flexible display panel DP. The first inclined angle θ1 may be equal to or greater than about 90 degrees. In the present exemplary embodiment, the first inclined angle θ1 may be an obtuse angle. The second inclined portion SL2 includes a second surface IS2. The second surface IS2 is inclined at a second inclined angle θ2 with respect to the surface of the flexible display panel DP. The second inclined angle θ2 may be equal to or greater than about 90 degrees. In the present exemplary embodiment, the second inclined angle θ2 may be an obtuse angle.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
383
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to modify the first substrate first side surface taught in Ishida et al. to include the inclined portion taught in Namkung et al. to reduce stress on the display panel during folding because providing the inclined portions changes the location of the neutral stress plane in the resulting device (e.g. Detailed description [0099] “When an external force is applied to the flexible display device according to the present exemplary embodiment in order to fold the flexible display device, the second outer member P2 disposed at an outer side of the folding area FA is applied with a tensile stress and the first outer member P1 disposed at an inner side of the folding area FA is applied with a compression stress. In this case, a neutral plane NP, in which no tensile stress or compression stress occurs, exists between the first outer member P1 and the second outer member P2. When the neutral plane NP is disposed on the flexible display panel DP, the stress applied to the flexible display panel DP is reduced, and thus the flexible display panel DP may be prevented from being damaged while being folded.”).
Claim 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US10461270B2) in view of Park et al. (US10811623B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 9;
Ishida et al. is silent to a boundary where the first side surface meets the protective layer not overlapping with a display area in which the light-emitting elements are located as claimed.
However, Park et al. teaches a display device with an emission material layer which is not overlapped by a boundary where the first side surface meets the protective layer (e.g. Fig. 5 ref PXL; see examiner markup).
PNG
media_image5.png
696
884
media_image5.png
Greyscale
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to modify the emission material display region taught in Ishida et al. to include the Pixel display region taught in Park et al. to improve the reliability of the resulting display device because reducing the proximity of the sensitive light emitting elements to an area of stress/strain concentration would predictably reduce and or prevent stress/strain induced damage to sensitive electronic elements in the device.
Regarding claim 16;
Ishida et al. is silent to the barrier layer comprising the same material as the protective layer as claimed.
However, Park et al. teaches a display device including a plurality of interlayer insulating layers (e.g. Fig. 3 ref INS1-INS3) formed from Inorganic and or organic materials (e.g. Detailed description [0074]-[0075], [0077]).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the barrier layer taught in Ishida et al. from an inorganic material as taught in Park et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US10461270B2) in view of Choi et al. (US9618974B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 10;
Ishida et al. teaches the display device of claim 1 wherein the first substrate comprises a rigid material, and wherein the second substrate comprises a polymer resin (e.g. Detailed description [0027] “The plastic substrate 10 is a film-shaped substrate exhibiting flexibility and made of a resin material exhibiting insulating properties, and an organic material such as polyimide resin or acrylic resin can be used as the resin material forming the plastic substrate 10.”).
Ishida et al. is silent to the rigid material comprising the first substrate being glass as claimed.
However, Park et al. teaches a display device which uses a display device comprising a rigid substrate made of a glass material (e.g. Detailed description [0057] “The substrate 100, for example, includes first and second substrates 110 and 120 which are formed of a rigid material such as glass.”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the first substrate taught in Ishida et al. from a glass material as taught in Park et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ishida et al. (US10461270B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 11;
Ishida et al. teaches the display device of claim 1 wherein an adhesive strength of the protective layer to the first substrate is higher than an adhesive strength of the second substrate to the first substrate (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
In the alternative, even though Ishida et al. does not explicitly teach that an adhesive strength of the protective layer to the first substrate is higher than an adhesive strength of the second substrate to the first substrate, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing that the adhesive strength (interpreted under BRI to be the degree of bonding between two surfaces, interfaces, materials, etc.) between the protective layer and the first substrate would be greater than the adhesive strength between the first and second substrate due to the lack of contact between surfaces of the first and second substrates (interpreted as tantamount to a nearly zero adhesive strength).
Claims 12-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US10461270B2) in view of Park (US10930883B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 12;
Ishida et al. teaches the display device of claim 1 wherein the protective layer comprises an organic material (e.g. Detailed description [0055] “A material forming the inorganic layers 6, 7 includes, for example, organic materials such as silicon oxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and silicon nitride (SiNx (x is a positive number)) including trisilicon tetranitride (Si3N4) etc.”).
Ishida et al. is silent to the protective layer comprising Silicon as claimed.
However, Park teaches a display device with an multilayered protective layer formed from impact absorbing materials (e.g. Detailed description [0081] “For example, the impact absorbing layer may comprise polyurethane (PU), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), silicon (Si), or polydimethyl acrylamide (PDMA).”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the protective layer taught in Ishida et al. from Silicon as taught in Park et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13;
Ishida et al. further teaches that the protective layer comprises amorphous silicon or silicon oxide (SiOx) (e.g. Detailed description [0055] “A material forming the inorganic layers 6, 7 includes, for example, organic materials such as silicon oxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and silicon nitride (SiNx (x is a positive number)) including trisilicon tetranitride (Si3N4) etc.”).
Regarding claim 17;
Ishida et al. is silent to the second protective layer comprising amorphous silicon on the first protective layer as claimed.
However, Park teaches a display device with a first and second buffer layer (e.g. Fig. 4 ref 471,472) comprising a non-metallic inorganic material (e.g. Detailed description [0112] “The first and second buffer films 471 and 472 may comprise a non-metallic inorganic material such as silicon (Si) (or amorphous silicon).”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the second protective layer taught in Ishida et al. from amorphous silicon as taught in Park et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US10461270B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 14;
Ishida et al. is silent to the protective layer having a thickness of about 0.1 μm or less as claimed.
However, Ishida et al. teaches that the protective layer has a thickness in the range of 1.5-3.5μm (e.g. Detailed description [0056] “From a perspective of sufficiently ensuring endurance of the organic EL element 4, the thicknesses of the inorganic layers 6, 7 are preferably 1.5 to 3.5 μm.”)
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the protective layer taught in Ishida et al. with the 0.1 μm or less thickness taught in claim 14 because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed 0.1 μm or less thickness and prior art 1.5-3.5 μm do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see MPEP § 2144.05 and Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). In the absence of any indication of the criticality of the 0.1 μm or less as disclosed in claim 14, it will be taken that the teaching of Ishida et al. reads on the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ROBERT MANN whose telephone number is (571)270-0210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 0800-1800 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/WILLIAM ROBERT MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights