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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/24/2024, 9/12/2024, 10/28/2024, 1/28/2025, 12/30/2025, 6/2/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Regarding claim 6 (and dependent claims 7-8 dependent therefrom): Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a center of the microlens arranged in the first light emitting element is arranged between a center of a light emitting region of the first light emitting element where light is emitted and the center of the display region” in claim 6 is used by the claim to describe an arrangement where the lens is shifted away from the display center (See Fig. 5B of the specification) while the accepted meaning is an arrangement where the lens is shifted towards the display center. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Furthermore, “between” is used elsewhere in the claim for other terms consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning and with the specification. The examiner finds [0060] describing the features of the claim and relating them to Fig. 5B, however, this paragraph does not rise to the level of clearly required to redefine the term as meaning the opposite situation. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim (and corresponding [0060] of the written description) is interpreted as describing a situation where the lens is shifted away from the display center, consistent with Fig. 5B of the specification.
Regarding claim 7: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a center of the microlens arranged in the second light emitting element is arranged between a center of a light emitting region of the second light emitting element where light is emitted and the center of the display region” in claim 7 is used by the claim to describe an arrangement where the lens is shifted away from the display center (See Fig. 5B of the specification) while the accepted meaning is an arrangement where the lens is shifted towards the display center. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Furthermore, “between” is used elsewhere in the claim for other terms consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning and with the specification. The examiner finds [0060] describing the features of the claim and relating them to Fig. 5B, however, this paragraph does not rise to the level of clearly required to redefine the term as meaning the opposite situation. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim (and corresponding [0060] of the written description) is interpreted as describing a situation where the lens is shifted away from the display center, consistent with Fig. 5B of the specification.
Regarding claim 15 (and dependent claim 16 dependent therefrom): Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a center of the microlens arranged in the first light emitting element is arranged between a center of a light emitting region of the first light emitting element where light is emitted and the center of the display region” in claim 15 is used by the claim to describe an arrangement where the lens is shifted away from the display center (See Fig. 5B of the specification) while the accepted meaning is an arrangement where the lens is shifted towards the display center. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Furthermore, “between” is used elsewhere in the claim for other terms consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning and with the specification. The examiner finds [0060] describing the features of the claim and relating them to Fig. 5B, however, this paragraph does not rise to the level of clearly required to redefine the term as meaning the opposite situation. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim (and corresponding [0060] of the written description) is interpreted as describing a situation where the lens is shifted away from the display center, consistent with Fig. 5B of the specification.
Regarding claim 16: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a center of the microlens arranged in the second light emitting element is arranged between a center of a light emitting region of the second light emitting element where light is emitted and the center of the display region” in claim 16 is used by the claim to describe an arrangement where the lens is shifted away from the display center (See Fig. 5B of the specification) while the accepted meaning is an arrangement where the lens is shifted towards the display center. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Furthermore, “between” is used elsewhere in the claim for other terms consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning and with the specification. The examiner finds [0060] describing the features of the claim and relating them to Fig. 5B, however, this paragraph does not rise to the level of clearly required to redefine the term as meaning the opposite situation. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim (and corresponding [0060] of the written description) is interpreted as describing a situation where the lens is shifted away from the display center, consistent with Fig. 5B of the specification.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference (or combination of references), but are disclosed or rendered obvious by secondary references or remarks.
Claims 1-12, 17, and 19-20 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshihara (US 20200357854 A1) in view of Kuba (US 20070069996 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koshihara discloses a light emitting device (Fig. 1: 100) in which
a plurality of light emitting elements ([0040]: “pixels P includes a sub-pixel PB…PG…PR”), each of which comprises a light emitting layer (Fig. 3: 24; [0043]: “emits light”) and a light extraction structure (610) arranged so as to cover the light emitting layer (“cover” at least in the z direction), are arranged on a main surface (“on” in the z direction) of a substrate (10), and
the plurality of light emitting elements include a red light emitting element (PR) configured to emit red light ([0040]: “red wavelength”), a green light emitting element (PG) configured to emit green light ([0040]: “green wavelength”), and a blue light emitting element (PB) configured to emit blue light ([0040]: “blue wavelength”), and comprise a resonant structure (a collection of 25/21. Note: this interpretation using a collection of structures is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure, Fig. 2A: 111/122/123) corresponding to each light emission color (there is a collection of 25/21 corresponding to each of these colors and elements), wherein
if λon_g [nm] is a resonant peak wavelength in a normal direction of the main surface in the resonant structure of the green light emitting element (this definition is being applied to the reference), λg [nm] is a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the green light emitting element (this definition is being applied to the reference), λon_b [nm] is a resonant peak wavelength in the normal direction of the main surface in the resonant structure of the blue light emitting element (this definition is being applied to the reference), and λb [nm] is a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the blue light emitting element (this definition is being applied to the reference),
Δg = λon_g - λg > 0 [nm]
Δb = λon_b - λb > 0 [nm]
Δg - Δb ≥ 0 [nm] are satisfied.
Illustrated below are Figs. 1 and 3 of Koshihara.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
631
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Koshihara fails to teach the specific claimed mathematical relation of the resonant peak wavelengths and the emission spectrum.
Kuba discloses a light emitting device ([0009]: “electroluminescent device”)
if λon_g [nm] is a resonant peak wavelength in a normal direction of the main surface in the resonant structure of the green light emitting element ([0060]: “resonant peak wavelength…λ2g”), λg [nm] is a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the green light emitting element ([0060]: “emission peak wavelength… λ1g”), λon_b [nm] is a resonant peak wavelength in the normal direction of the main surface in the resonant structure of the blue light emitting element ([0060]: “resonant peak wavelength…λ2b”), and λb [nm] is a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the blue light emitting element ([0060]: “emission peak wavelength… λ1g”),
Δg = λon_g - λg > 0 [nm] (Fig. 11B; [0060]: “all set on the longer wavelength side of the emission peak wavelengths”)
Δb = λon_b - λb > 0 [nm] (Fig. 11C; [0060]: “all set on the longer wavelength side of the emission peak wavelengths”)
Δg - Δb ≥ 0 [nm] are satisfied ([0067]: “0.5 ≤ Δλb/Δλb ≤ 2” includes values from 0.5 to 1, which requires Δg and Δb to have values satisfying this condition. For example: setting Δg=15 and Δb=10 would satisfy this claimed condition and fall within the range and mathematical relation of the prior art. Note: the ≤ symbol is the closest equivalent symbol available in the writing tools available for directly quoting the reference. See [0067] for the actual mathematical symbols used in the disclosure.).
Modifying the resonant peak wavelengths and the emission spectrum (of Koshihara) by incorporating the mathematical relation disclosed by Kuba would arrive at the claimed configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the resonant peak wavelength is deliberately varied to effect the resultant emission spectrum (Koshihara: [0063]: “the predetermined wavelength region is enhanced by adjusting the optical distance”; Kuba: [0060]: “which are all set” in combination with [0061]: “output intensities among the color light rays”). Kuba provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the claimed mathematical relation in that it would enhance device performance across a broader set of operating conditions ([0061]: “the ratio of the output intensities among the color light rays is maintained substantially constant even when the output angle θ increases”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed mathematical relation because it would enhance device performance across a broader set of operating conditions. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Illustrated below are Fig. 11A-11C of Kuba.
PNG
media_image3.png
208
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 4, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses the device according to claim 1, but fails to teach the claimed Δg and Δb values with sufficient precision to anticipate the claims:
Claim 2: wherein 15 [nm] ≥ Δg - Δb ≥ 0 [nm] is further satisfied.
Claim 3: wherein 17 [nm] ≥ Δb > 0 [nm] is further satisfied.
Claim 4: wherein 20 [nm] ≥ Δg ≥ 10 [nm] is further satisfied.
Regarding the claimed range endpoints of the mathematical relation among Δg and Δb: Koshihara in view of Kuba does not teach sufficient precision in the disclosure to anticipate these endpoints. Nevertheless, Kuba: Fig. 15: the wavelength differences for L2b/L1b and L2g/L1g illustrates Δg and Δb values on the same order of magnitude required to satisfy the claim. For example, Fig. 15 teaches these values are less than hundreds of nm, based on the grid lines of the graph. Accordingly, Kuba teaches Δg and Δb values that are reasonably close to the values required to satisfy the claimed mathematical relation (i.e., Δg and Δb are each illustrated smaller than 100 nm and therefore reasonably close to tens of nm). Setting Δg=15 and Δb=10 would satisfy these claimed conditions and are within the tens of nm. Therefore, the claimed values and mathematical relations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Illustrated below is Fig. 15 of Kuba.
PNG
media_image4.png
403
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses the device according to claim 1 (Koshihara: Fig. 3), wherein the light extraction structure includes a microlens ([0048]: “lenses”).
Regarding claim 6 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses the device according to claim 5 (Koshihara: Fig. 7), comprising a display region (A10) where the plurality of light emitting elements are arranged, wherein
the plurality of light emitting elements further include a first light emitting element (corresponding to 610y) arranged between a center (O1) and an outer edge of the display region (y edge), and
in an orthogonal projection to the main surface, a center (O6) of the microlens arranged in the first light emitting element is arranged between (“between” is interpreted here as meaning shifted towards the edge, consistent with Fig. 5B of Applicant’s disclosure) a center (O2) of a light emitting region of the first light emitting element where light is emitted and the center of the display region.
Regarding claim 7 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses the device according to claim 6 (Koshihara: Fig. 7), wherein
the plurality of light emitting elements further include a second light emitting element (corresponding to 610x) arranged between (“between” in the y direction) the center of the display region and the first light emitting element,
in the orthogonal projection to the main surface, a center (O6) of the microlens arranged in the second light emitting element is arranged between (“between” is interpreted here as meaning shifted towards the edge, consistent with Fig. 5B of Applicant’s disclosure) a center (O2) of a light emitting region of the second light emitting element where light is emitted and the center of the display region, and
in the orthogonal projection to the main surface, a shift amount (Dy) between the center of the light emitting region and the center of the microlens in the first light emitting element is larger ([0091]: “the distance…increases…toward the outside”) than a shift amount (Dx) between the center of the light emitting region and the center of the microlens in the second light emitting element.
Regarding claim 8, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses the device according to claim 6 (Koshihara: Fig. 7), wherein
the plurality of light emitting elements further include a third light emitting element (corresponding to 610z) arranged at the center of the display region, and in the orthogonal projection to the main surface, a center (the center is at O1) of the microlens arranged in the third light emitting element overlaps ([0090]: “other than the reference lens 610z”) a center (the center is at O1) of a light emitting region of the third light emitting element where light is emitted.
Regarding claim 9, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses the device according to claim 1 (Kuba: Fig. 15), wherein a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the red light emitting element (L1r) is not less than 600 nm and not more than 650 nm (the figure provides sufficient precision to interpret the peak of L1r within the claimed range), a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the green light emitting element (L1g) is not less than 500 nm and not more than 550 nm (the figure provides sufficient precision to interpret the peak of L1g within the claimed range), and a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the blue light emitting element (L1b) is not less than 440 nm and not more than 480 nm (the figure provides sufficient precision to interpret the peak of L1b within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses the device according to claim 1 (Koshihara: [0060]: “white light”; Kuba: [0109]: “white light”), wherein the light emitting layer emits white light.
Regarding claim 11, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses the device according to claim 10 (Koshihara: Fig. 3), wherein each of the plurality of light emitting elements further comprises a color filter (51).
Regarding claim 12, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses the device according to claim 11, wherein the color filter of the red light emitting element (51R) transmits light of not less than 600 nm and not more than 650 nm ([0070]: “transmits the light in the red wavelength region”), the color filter of the green light emitting element (51G) transmits light of not less than 500 nm and not more than 550 nm ([0070]: “transmits the light in the green wavelength region”), and the color filter of the blue light emitting element (51B) transmits light of not less than 440 nm and not more than 480 nm ([0070]: “transmits the light in the blue wavelength region”).
Regarding claim 17, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses a display device comprising the light emitting device according to claim 1 (Koshihara: Fig. 3), and an active element (Fig. 2: transistors 31/32) connected to the light emitting device.
Regarding claim 19, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses an electronic apparatus comprising a housing ([0156]: “electronic apparatus”) provided with a display unit ([0156]: “display unit”), and a communication unit provided in the housing and configured to perform external communication ([0156]: “smartphone” requires at least some kind of external communication to be designated as a variant a telephone, consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of these terms), wherein the display unit includes the light emitting device according to claim 1 ([0156]: “including the display device 100”).
Regarding claim 20, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses a wearable device ([0156]: “binoculars…digital camera”. Notes: these variants of devices are ordinarily and customarily “wearable” with neck lanyards.) comprising a display device configured to display an image ([0156]: including the display device 100), wherein the display device includes the light emitting device according to claim 1 ([0156]: including the display device 100).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshihara and Kuba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (US 20220132079 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Koshihara in view of Kuba discloses a photoelectric conversion device ([0156]: “electronic apparatus”) comprising an optical unit ([0156]: “electronic binoculars”) including a plurality of microlenses, an image sensor configured to receive light having passed through the optical unit, and a display unit configured to display an image ([0156]: “electronic viewfinder”), wherein the display unit displays an image captured by the image sensor ([0156]: “virtual image display device”), and includes the light emitting device according to claim 1 ([0156]: “the display device 100”).
Koshihara in view of Kuba only generically teaches the photoelectric conversion device, and thus fails to teach the claimed configuration “a photoelectric conversion device including a plurality of microlenses, an image sensor configured to receive light having passed through the optical unit”.
Choi discloses a photoelectric conversion device (Fig. 1: 100; [0035]: “image sensor”) comprising an optical unit (110) including a plurality of microlenses ([0041]: “micro-lens”), an image sensor ([0041]: “optical-to-electro conversion device”) configured to receive light having passed through the optical unit ([0041]: “under the micro-lens”), and a display unit configured to display an image ([0057]: “view finder”), wherein the display unit displays an image captured by the image sensor (Fig. 1: IDAT), and includes the light emitting device according to claim 1.
Modifying the light emitting device (of Koshihara in view of Kuba) by including it in the photoelectric conversion device (of Choi) would arrive at the claimed photoelectric conversion device configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the light emitting device is performing the same function (Koshihara: [0156]: “viewfinder”; Choi: [0057]: “view finder”). Choi provides a teaching to incorporate the photoelectric conversion device with the light emitting device of Koshihara in view of Kuba in that it would provide an improved operation experience ([0057]: “may perform fast focusing without the display shaking”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed device configuration because it would provide an improved operation experience. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshihara.
Regarding independent claim 13, Koshihara discloses a light emitting device (Fig. 1) in which
a plurality of light emitting elements ([0040]: “pixels P includes a sub-pixel PB…PG…PR”), each of which comprises a light emitting layer (Fig. 3: 24; [0043]: “emits light”) and a light extraction structure (610) arranged so as to cover the light emitting layer (“cover” at least in the z direction), are arranged on a main surface (“on” in the z direction) of a substrate (10), and
the plurality of light emitting elements include a red light emitting element (PR) configured to emit red light ([0040]: “red wavelength”), a green light emitting element (PG) configured to emit green light ([0040]: “green wavelength”), and a blue light emitting element (PB) configured to emit blue light ([0040]: “blue wavelength”), and comprise a resonant structure (a collection of 25/21. Note: this interpretation using a collection of structures is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure, Fig. 2A: 111/122/123) corresponding to each light emission color (there is a collection of 25/21 corresponding to each of these colors and elements), wherein
in the light emitting device, when emitting white light, a color shift between light emission in a normal direction of the main surface and light emission in a direction of 30° with respect to the normal direction of the main surface in an a*b* space falls within a range of |a*| ≤ 5.0 and b* ≤ 0.
Koshihara fails to teach the specific claimed color shift characteristic:
“in the light emitting device, when emitting white light, a color shift between light emission in a normal direction of the main surface and light emission in a direction of 30° with respect to the normal direction of the main surface in an a*b* space falls within a range of |a*| ≤ 5.0 and b* ≤ 0.”
Nevertheless, Koshihara teaches “a color shift between light emission in a normal direction of the main surface and light emission in a direction […] with respect to the normal direction of the main surface in an a*b* space” is a result-effective variable ([0111]: “uneven color and the like can be reduced”) deliberately lowered/reduced by adjusting the light extraction structure ([0111]: “by changing the arrangement…the principal ray A1 can be set to a condition”).
Further as to claim 13, with respect to the “color shift” and the component a* and b* values of the shift: although Koshihara failed to disclose the specific component values of the color shift, it has been held that numerical differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such “color shift” range is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality (see paragraph below) of the “color shift” claimed and the Prior Art shows that the color shift is deliberately adjusted to a lower/reduced condition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select suitable adjustments for the device to produce the desired resultant “color shift”.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “color shift” or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Koshihara discloses the device according to claim 13 (Fig. 3), wherein the light extraction structure includes a microlens ([0048]: “lenses”).
Regarding claim 15 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Koshihara discloses the device according to claim 14 (Fig. 7), comprising a display region (A10) where the plurality of light emitting elements are arranged,
wherein the plurality of light emitting elements further include a first light emitting element (corresponding to 610y) arranged between a center (O1) and an outer edge of the display region (y edge), and
in an orthogonal projection to the main surface, a center (O6) of the microlens arranged in the first light emitting element is arranged between (“between” is interpreted here as meaning shifted towards the edge, consistent with Fig. 5B of Applicant’s disclosure) a center (O2) of a light emitting region of the first light emitting element where light is emitted and the center of the display region.
Regarding claim 16 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Koshihara discloses the device according to claim 15 (Fig. 7), wherein
the plurality of light emitting elements further include a second light emitting element (corresponding to 610x) arranged between (“between” in the y direction) the center of the display region and the first light emitting element,
in the orthogonal projection to the main surface, a center (O6) of the microlens arranged in the second light emitting element is arranged between (“between” is interpreted here as meaning shifted towards the edge, consistent with Fig. 5B of Applicant’s disclosure) a center (O2) of a light emitting region of the second light emitting element where light is emitted and the center of the display region, and
in the orthogonal projection to the main surface, a shift amount (Dy) between the center of the light emitting region and the center of the microlens in the first light emitting element is larger ([0091]: “the distance…increases…toward the outside”) than a shift amount (Dx) between the center of the light emitting region and the center of the microlens in the second light emitting element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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 H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights