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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-6, 16, 20, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al. (US 20180047712 A1 – hereinafter Bang) in view of Yamauchi et al. (US 20250031501 A1 – hereinafter Yamauchi), Keates (US 20200411717 A1), and Oyama et al. (US 20240332470 A1 – hereinafter Oyama).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bang teaches:
A display panel ([0052] – “a display apparatus including the light source
module 100” – hereinafter ‘DP’), comprising:
a circuit substrate ([0024] – “Although not shown, the base plate 112 may be a
printed circuit board (PCB) in which and/or on which circuit patterns are formed. For example, the base plate 112 may include a stack structure including a metal base including, e.g., aluminum, an insulating layer covering the metal base, and the circuit patterns provided on the insulating layer” – hereinafter ‘CS’);
a plurality of light-emitting components (120 – Fig. 3 – [0023] – “plurality of
light-emitting devices 120”) located on a side of the circuit substrate (CS), wherein at least one of the plurality of light-emitting components (120) comprises a first surface (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – [0038] – “encapsulation layer 130 may include a side encapsulation layer 132 and a top encapsulation layer 134” – hereinafter ‘S1’) facing away from the circuit substrate (CS), at least one of the plurality of light-emitting components (120) further comprises a second surface (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – [0038] – “encapsulation layer 130 may include a side encapsulation layer 132 and a top encapsulation layer 134” – hereinafter ‘S2’), the second surface at least partially surrounds the first surface, one of the first surface (S1) or the second surface (S2) is a hydrophilic surface, and an other of the first surface (S1) or the second surface (S2) is a hydrophobic surface; and
a plurality of microlenses, wherein the plurality of microlenses are located on a side of the plurality of light-emitting components facing away from the circuit substrate, and an orthographic projection of a microlens of the plurality of microlenses on a plane where the circuit substrate is located overlaps an orthographic projection of the first surface on the plane where the circuit substrate is located and does not overlap an orthographic projection of the second surface on the plane where the circuit substrate is located.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bang does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Yamauchi teaches
the second surface (3 – Fig. 1 – [0018] – “barrier layer 3” – this corresponds to the second surface) at least partially surrounds (Fig. 1 shows this) the first surface (62 – Fig. 1 – [0039] – “upper filler layer 62” – this corresponds to the first surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second surface structure as taught by Yamauchi into Bang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamauchi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of creating a barrier for to stop the first surface.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Bang and Yamauchi do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Keates teaches
a hydrophilic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533”),
a hydrophobic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533” – this is interpreted as hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces in contact with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate hydrophilic surface in contact with a hydrophobic surface as taught by Keates into Bang and Yamauchi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Keates in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of facilitating attachment of other elements onto the different surfaces based on their moisture content.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Oyama teaches
a plurality of microlenses (5 – Fig. 1 – [0052] – “a lens 5”), wherein the plurality of microlenses (5) are located on a side of the plurality of light-emitting components (1 – Fig. 1 – [0051] – “light-emitting devices 1”) facing away from the circuit substrate (10 – Fig. 1 – [0053] – “substrate 10 is provided with a driver circuit (not illustrated) for driving the light-emitting devices 1”), and an orthographic projection of a microlens (5) of the plurality of microlenses (5) on a plane where the circuit substrate (10) is located overlaps an orthographic projection of the first surface (3c – Fig. 1 – [0057] – “third light-reflective section 3C is provided on a light-emitting-surface 2A side of the light-shielding section 6 opposed to the light-emitting surface 2A of the light-emitting element 2” – this corresponds to the first surface) on the plane where the circuit substrate (10) is located and does not overlap an orthographic projection of the second surface (3b – Fig. 1 – [0058] – “second light-reflective section 3B and the light-emitting element 2 and a boundary between a portion of the second light-reflective section 3B and the light control section 4 may be separated” – this corresponds to the second surface) on the plane where the circuit substrate (10 – Fig. 1 shows this) is located.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the microlens structure as taught by Oyama into Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Oyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results [0005] – “to satisfy both of improvement in luminance in the light exit direction and reduction in the pixel pitch.”
Regarding claim 2, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 2.
However, in an analogous art, Oyama teaches
wherein the orthographic projection of the microlens (5) on the plane where
the circuit substrate (10) is located coincides with the orthographic projection of the first surface (3C) on the plane where the circuit substrate (10 – Fig. 1 shows this) is located.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the microlens structure as taught by Oyama into Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Oyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Bang further teaches
the first surface (S1),
the second surface (S2).
Bang, Yamauchi, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Keates teaches
wherein the first surface is a hydrophilic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer
530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533”), and the second surface is a hydrophobic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533” – this is interpreted as hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces in contact with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate hydrophilic surface in contact with a hydrophobic surface as taught by Keates into Bang and Yamauchi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Keates in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Bang further teaches
a surface of the light-emitting element (124 – Fig. 4 – [0030] – “124 may include a first-conductivity-type semiconductor layer 124a, an active layer 124b, and a second-conductivity-type semiconductor layer 124c that are stacked sequentially” – this is the light-emitting element) facing away from the circuit substrate (112) is a top surface (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘2101’), a surface of the light-emitting element (120) adjacent to the top surface (2101) is a lateral surface (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘2102’), the first modified film (134 – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “encapsulation layer 130 may include a side encapsulation layer 132 and a top encapsulation layer 134”) is at least partially located on the top surface (2101), and the second modified film (132 – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “encapsulation layer 130 may include a side encapsulation layer 132 and a top encapsulation layer 134”) is located on at least one of the top surface (2101) or the lateral surface (2102 – Fig. 4 has been annotated to show the corresponding locations of elements 132 and 134); and the first surface (S1) is a surface of the first modified film (134 – Fig. 4 – annotated shows element 134 can replace element 122) facing away from the light-emitting element (124), and the second surface (S2) is a surface of the second modified film (132) facing away from the light-emitting element (124 – Fig. 4 annotated, see below shows this).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bang, Yamauchi, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Keates teaches
wherein at least one of the plurality of light-emitting components (512 – Fig.
5 – [0076] – “micro LEDs 512”) comprises a light-emitting element (516 – Fig. 5 – [0076] – “micro light emitting diode devices 514, 516”), a first modified film (532 – Fig. 5 – [0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533”), and a second modified film (533 – Fig. 5 – [0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533”), wherein one of the first modified film (532) or the second modified film (533) is made of a hydrophilic material (532 – Fig. 5 – [0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533”), and an other of the first modified film (532) or the second modified film (533) is made of a hydrophobic material (533 – Fig. 5 – [0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate modified film structure as taught by Keates into Bang and Yamauchi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Keates in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 4 from which claim 5 depends. Bang further teaches
wherein
the first modified film (134) is located on the top surface, and an
orthographic projection of the first modified film (134) on the plane where the circuit substrate (112) is located coincides with an orthographic projection of the top surface on the plane where the circuit substrate (112 – Fig. 4 annotated – see above, shows this) is located.
Regarding claim 6, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 5 from which claim 6 depends. Bang further teaches
wherein
the second modified film (132) is located on the lateral surface, and an
orthographic projection of the second modified film (132) on the plane where the circuit substrate is located does not overlap the orthographic projection of the top surface on the plane where the circuit substrate (112 – Fig. 4 annotated – see above, shows this) is located.
Regarding claim 16, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 16 depends. Bang, Keates, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Yamauchi teaches
further comprising
a planarization layer (7 – Fig. – [0081] – “the coating layer 7 plays, for example,
the role of a planarizing layer”) located on a side of the microlens (5) facing away from the circuit substrate (2), wherein
a refractive index of the planarization layer (7) is less ([0080] – “refractive index of the coating layer 7 with respect to the light is lower than the refractive index of the lens 5 with respect to this light”) than a refractive index of the microlens (5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the planarization layer structure as taught by Yamauchi into Bang, Keates, and Oyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamauchi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 20 depends. Bang further teaches
A preparation method of a display panel (DP), applied to prepare the
display panel (DP) of claim 1, comprising:
preparing the circuit substrate (CS);
preparing the plurality of light-emitting components (120) on a side of the circuit substrate (CS), wherein at least one of the plurality of light-emitting components (120) comprises the first surface (S1) facing away from the circuit substrate (CS), and at least one of the plurality of light-emitting components (120) further comprises the second surface (S2), the second surface at least partially surrounds the first surface, one of the first surface (S1) or the second surface (S2) is a hydrophilic surface, and an other of the first surface (S1) or the second surface (S2) is a hydrophobic surface; and
preparing the plurality of microlenses, wherein the plurality of microlenses are located on a side of the plurality of light-emitting components facing away from the circuit substrate, and an orthographic projection of a microlens of the plurality of microlenses on a plane where the circuit substrate is located overlaps an orthographic projection of the first surface on the plane where the circuit substrate is located and does not overlap an orthographic projection of the second surface on the plane where the circuit substrate is located.
Bang does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Yamauchi teaches
the second surface (3 – Fig. 1 – [0018] – “barrier layer 3” – this corresponds to the second surface) at least partially surrounds (Fig. 1 shows this) the first surface (62 – Fig. 1 – [0039] – “upper filler layer 62” – this corresponds to the first surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second surface structure as taught by Yamauchi into Bang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamauchi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Bang and Yamauchi do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Keates teaches
a hydrophilic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533”),
a hydrophobic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533” – this is interpreted as hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces in contact with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate hydrophilic surface in contact with a hydrophobic surface as taught by Keates into Bang and Yamauchi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Keates in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Oyama teaches
preparing the plurality of microlenses (5 – Fig. 1 – [0052] – “a lens 5”), wherein the plurality of microlenses (5) are located on a side of the plurality of light-emitting components (1 – Fig. 1 – [0051] – “light-emitting devices 1”) facing away from the circuit substrate (10 – Fig. 1 – [0053] – “substrate 10 is provided with a driver circuit (not illustrated) for driving the light-emitting devices 1”), and an orthographic projection of a microlens (5) of the plurality of microlenses (5) on a plane where the circuit substrate (10) is located overlaps an orthographic projection of the first surface (3c – Fig. 1 – [0057] – “third light-reflective section 3C is provided on a light-emitting-surface 2A side of the light-shielding section 6 opposed to the light-emitting surface 2A of the light-emitting element 2” – this corresponds to the first surface) on the plane where the circuit substrate (10) is located and does not overlap an orthographic projection of the second surface (3b – Fig. 1 – [0058] – “second light-reflective section 3B and the light-emitting element 2 and a boundary between a portion of the second light-reflective section 3B and the light control section 4 may be separated” – this corresponds to the second surface) on the plane where the circuit substrate (10 – Fig. 1 shows this) is located.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the microlens structure as taught by Oyama into Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Oyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 19, Bang teaches:
A display device, comprising a display panel ([0052] – “a display
apparatus including the light source module 100” – hereinafter ‘DP’), wherein the display panel (DP) comprises:
a circuit substrate ([0024] – “Although not shown, the base plate 112 may be a printed circuit board (PCB) in which and/or on which circuit patterns are formed. For example, the base plate 112 may include a stack structure including a metal base including, e.g., aluminum, an insulating layer covering the metal base, and the circuit patterns provided on the insulating layer” – hereinafter ‘CS’);
a plurality of light-emitting components (120 – Fig. 3 – [0023] – “plurality of
light-emitting devices 120”) located on a side of the circuit substrate (CS), wherein at least one of the plurality of light-emitting components (120) comprises a first surface (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – [0038] – “encapsulation layer 130 may include a side encapsulation layer 132 and a top encapsulation layer 134” – hereinafter ‘S1’) facing away from the circuit substrate (CS), at least one of the plurality of light-emitting components (120) further comprises a second surface (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – [0038] – “encapsulation layer 130 may include a side encapsulation layer 132 and a top encapsulation layer 134” – hereinafter ‘S2’), the second surface at least partially surrounds the first surface, one of the first surface (S1) or the second surface (S2) is a hydrophilic surface, and an other of the first surface (S1) or the second surface (S2) is a hydrophobic surface; and
a plurality of microlenses, wherein the plurality of microlenses are located on a side of the plurality of light-emitting components facing away from the circuit substrate, and an orthographic projection of a microlens on a plane where the circuit substrate is located overlaps an orthographic projection of the first surface on the plane where the circuit substrate is located and does not overlap an orthographic projection of the second surface on the plane where the circuit substrate is located.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bang does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Yamauchi teaches
the second surface (3 – Fig. 1 – [0018] – “barrier layer 3”) at least partially surrounds (Fig. 1 shows this) the first surface (62 – Fig. 1 – [0039] – “upper filler layer 62”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second surface structure as taught by Yamauchi into Bang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamauchi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Bang and Yamauchi do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Keates teaches
a hydrophilic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533”),
a hydrophobic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533” – this is interpreted as hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces in contact with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate hydrophilic surface in contact with a hydrophobic surface as taught by Keates into Bang and Yamauchi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Keates in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Oyama teaches
a plurality of microlenses (5 – Fig. 1 – [0052] – “a lens 5”), wherein the plurality of microlenses (5) are located on a side of the plurality of light-emitting components (1 – Fig. 1 – [0051] – “light-emitting devices 1”) facing away from the circuit substrate (10 – Fig. 1 – [0053] – “substrate 10 is provided with a driver circuit (not illustrated) for driving the light-emitting devices 1”), and an orthographic projection of a microlens (5) on a plane where the circuit substrate (10) is located overlaps an orthographic projection of the first surface (3c – Fig. 1 – [0057] – “third light-reflective section 3C is provided on a light-emitting-surface 2A side of the light-shielding section 6 opposed to the light-emitting surface 2A of the light-emitting element 2” – this corresponds to the first surface) on the plane where the circuit substrate (10) is located and does not overlap an orthographic projection of the second surface (3b – Fig. 1 – [0058] – “second light-reflective section 3B and the light-emitting element 2 and a boundary between a portion of the second light-reflective section 3B and the light control section 4 may be separated” – this corresponds to the second surface) on the plane where the circuit substrate (10 – Fig. 1 shows this) is located.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the microlens structure as taught by Oyama into Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Oyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Yamauchi, Keates, Oyama, and Leung et al. (US 20230163238 A1 – hereinafter Leung).
Regarding claim 7, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 6 from which claim 7 depends. Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Leung teaches
wherein a thickness of the second modified film (254 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “a p-
type layer 250 is formed around electron blocking layer 240 to provide hole injection through sidewalls 252 of active QW structure 230 in directions indicated by arrows 254, in addition to c-plane hole migration through a top surface 239 of active QW structure 230 in c-plane direction 150.” – this is interpreted as a second modified film as it has different properties from the first film on the top surface) in a direction perpendicular to the lateral surface is D2 (1130 – Fig. 13 – [0072] – “sidewall layer thickness 1330”), and a thickness of the first modified film in a direction perpendicular to the top surface (250 – Fig. 2 – [0036] – “a p-type layer 250”) is D1 (1340 – Fig. 13 – [0072] – “top layer thickness 1340”), wherein D2 > D1 ([0072] – “field layer thickness 1320 on field 1210 is thinner than a sidewall layer thickness 1330 along the sidewall of mesa structure 1201. Further, a top layer thickness 1340 at the top of mesa structure 1201 is similar to field layer thickness 1320” – Fig. 13 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the film thickness structure as taught by Leung into Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Leung in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results [0005] – “of semiconductor light emitters that provide for light emission over a full visible spectrum with improved efficiency. In some implementations, the disclosed aspects may be included in micro-scale light emitting diodes (microLEDs).”
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Yamauchi, Keates, Oyama, and Hayashi (US 20180212128 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 4 from which claim 8 depends. Bang further teaches
the circuit substrate (112).
Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Hayashi teaches
wherein the second modified film (22d – Fig. 3B – [0048] – “a fluorescent
substance-free portion 22d”) is located on the top surface (Fig. 3B shows this); and
an orthographic projection of the second modified film (22d) on the plane
where the circuit substrate is located surrounds an orthographic projection of the first modified film (22c – Fig. 3B – [0048] – “fluorescent substance-containing portion 22c”) on the plane where the circuit substrate is located.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the film structure as taught by Hayashi into Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Hayashi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results to protect the light-emitting device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 9, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, Oyama, and Hayashi teaches claim 8 from which claim 9 depends.
Bang, Keates, Oyama, and Hayashi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Yamauchi teaches
wherein in a direction perpendicular to the plane where the circuit
substrate (2 – Fig. 1 – [0016] – “substrate 2”) is located, a distance between a surface of the first modified film (62) facing away from the circuit substrate (2) and a surface of the circuit substrate (2) is H1 (H5P – Fig. 1 – [0035] – “Height H5P of a peripheral portion of the convex surface based on the substrate 2 is less than or equal to the height H3 of the upper surface of the barrier layer 3 based on the substrate 2”), and a distance between a surface of the second modified film (3) facing away from the circuit substrate (2) and the surface of the circuit substrate (2) is H2 (H3 – Fig. 1 – [0023] – “A height H3 of the upper surface of the barrier layer 3 based on the substrate 2, that is, the thickness of the barrier layer 3, is preferably within a range of 2.8 to 15 μm, and more preferably within a range of 5 to 10 μm”), wherein H2 > H1 ([0035] – “Height H5P of a peripheral portion of the convex surface based on the substrate 2 is less than or equal to the height H3 of the upper surface of the barrier layer 3 based on the substrate 2” – Fig. 1 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second surface structure as taught by Yamauchi into Bang, Keates, Oyama, and Hayashi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamauchi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Yamauchi, Keates, Oyama, and Lin et al. (US 20210359177 A1 – hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 10, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 4 from which claim 10 depends. Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Lin teaches
wherein a thickness of the first modified film (321 – Fig. [0043] – “LED
component 321”) in a direction perpendicular to the plane where the circuit substrate is located is less than 10 nm ([0043] – “the thickness W of the top layer of LED component 321 is between 1 nanometer and 10 cm” – the thickness can be less than 10 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the first modified film thickness as taught by Lin into Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lin in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0006] – “an LED lamp to solve the problems faced by the industry, and at the same time improve the brightness of the LED lamp.”
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Yamauchi, Keates, Oyama, and Lee et al. (US 20200357846 A1 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 11, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 4 from which claim 11 depends. Bang further teaches
the first modified film (134).
Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
wherein the plurality of light-emitting components (200 – Fig. 1 – [0063] –
“plurality of LED units 200”) comprises a first-color light-emitting component (10G – Fig. 12 – [0089] – “the sub-pixel 10G may realize green light by a combination of the light emitting cell 10b and the second wavelength converter 51b”) and a second-color light-emitting component (10R – Fig. 12 – [0089] – “the sub-pixel 10R may realize red light by a combination of the third light emitting cell 10c and the third wavelength converter 51c”), wherein the first-color light-emitting component (10G) and the second-color light-emitting component (10R) are light-emitting components of different colors (green is different from red); and
an area of an orthographic projection of the first modified film of the first-color light-emitting component (30b – Fig. 12 – [0069] – “Areas of the first, second, and third light emitting cells 30a, 30b, and 30c may be determined in consideration of light conversion efficiencies of the wavelength converters 51a, 51b, and 51c” – element 30b is associated with element 51b that is associated with element 10G) on the plane where the circuit substrate is located is s1 (Fig. 12 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘s1’), and an area of an orthographic projection of the first modified film of the second-color light-emitting component (30c – Fig. 12 – [0069] – “Areas of the first, second, and third light emitting cells 30a, 30b, and 30c may be determined in consideration of light conversion efficiencies of the wavelength converters 51a, 51b, and 51c” – element 30c is associated with element 51c that is associated with element 10R) on the plane where the circuit substrate is located is s2 (Fig. 12 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘s2’), wherein s1 < s2 ([0069] – “second light emitting cell 30b has a greater area than that of the first light emitting cell 30a, and the third light emitting cell 30c has a greater area than that of the second light emitting cell 30b. Areas of the first, second, and third light emitting cells 30a, 30b, and 30c may be determined in consideration of light conversion efficiencies of the wavelength converters 51a, 51b, and 51c” – Fig. 12 shows this).
PNG
media_image3.png
446
828
media_image3.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, to integrate the area of the light-emitting components as taught by Lee into Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0004] – “a micro LED has been developed recently as a next-generation display that directly realizes an image using light emitting diodes.”
Regarding claim 12, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, Oyama, and Lee, teaches claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. Bang, Oyama, and Lee do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Yamauchi teaches
in the second-color light-emitting component (PX3 – Fig. 7 – [0089] – “third sub-pixel PX3 emits red light”), the first modified film (62B) is located on the top surface, the orthographic projection of the first modified film (62B) on the plane where the circuit substrate (2) is located coincides with an orthographic projection of the top surface on the plane where the circuit substrate (2) is located, and the second modified film (3) is located on the lateral surface (Fig. 7 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the modified film structure as taught by Yamauchi into Bang, Oyama, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamauchi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Bang, Oyama, Lee, and Yamauchi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Keates teaches
wherein in the first-color light-emitting component (514 – Fig. 5 – [0076] –
“micro light emitting diode devices 514, 516 (left) and 516 (right) are green, blue and blue micro light emitting diode devices, respectively”), the first modified film (532)
and the second modified film (533) are both located on the top surface (Fig. 5 shows this), and an orthographic projection of the second modified film (533) on the plane where the circuit substrate (501 – Fig. 5 – [0075] – “backplane 501 includes a glass substrate 502 having an insulating layer 504 thereon. Pixel thin film transistor (TFT) circuits 506 are included in and on the insulating layer 504. Each of the pixel TFT circuits 506 includes gate electrodes 507A, such as metal gate electrodes, and channels 507B, such as polycrystalline silicon channels or IGZO channels” – this is the circuit substrate) is located surrounds the orthographic projection of the first modified film on the plane where the circuit substrate (501) is located (Fig. 5 shows this); and in the second-color light-emitting component, the first modified film is located on the top surface, the orthographic projection of the first modified film on the plane where the circuit substrate is located coincides with an orthographic projection of the top surface on the plane where the circuit substrate is located, and the second modified film is located on the lateral surface;
or
in the first-color light-emitting component (514) and the second-color light-emitting component (516 (left) – Fig. 5 – [0076] – “micro light emitting diode devices 514, 516 (left) and 516 (right) are green, blue and blue micro light emitting diode devices, respectively”), the first modified film (532) and the second modified film (533) are both located on the top surface (Fig. 5 shows this), and an orthographic projection of the second modified film (533) on the plane where the circuit substrate (501) is located surrounds the orthographic projection of the first modified film (532) on the plane where the circuit substrate (501) is located (Fig. 5 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate color light-emitting component structure as taught by Keates into Bang, Oyama, Lee, and Yamauchi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Keates in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0003] – “A pixel may be a minute area of illumination on a display screen, one of many from which an image is composed. In other words, pixels may be small discrete elements that together constitute an image as on a display. Such primarily square or rectangular-shaped units may be the smallest item of information in an image. Pixels are normally arranged in a two-dimensional (2D) matrix, and are represented using dots, squares, rectangles, or other shapes. Pixels may be the basic building blocks of a display or digital image and with geometric coordinates.”
Regarding claim 13, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, Oyama, and Lee teaches claim 11 from which claim 13 depends. Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
wherein the first-color light-emitting(10G) component is a green light-
emitting component (10G – Fig. 12 – [0089] – “the sub-pixel 10G may realize green light by a combination of the light emitting cell 10b and the second wavelength converter 51b”), and the second-color light-emitting component (10R) is a red light-emitting component (10R – Fig. 12 – [0089] – “the sub-pixel 10R may realize red light by a combination of the third light emitting cell 10c and the third wavelength converter 51c”) or a blue light-emitting component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting components as taught by Lee into Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 11.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Yamauchi, Keates, Oyama, and Liu et al. (US 20230141534 A1 – hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 14, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 14 depends. Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, Liu teaches
wherein the plurality of light-emitting components (32 – Fig. 2 – [0084] –
“the second light-emitting unit 32 includes a first-color light-emitting unit 321 and a second-color light-emitting unit 322”) comprises a first-color light-emitting component (321 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “the second light-emitting unit 32 includes a first-color light-emitting unit 321 and a second-color light-emitting unit 322”) and a second-color light-emitting component (322 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “the second light-emitting unit 32 includes a first-color light-emitting unit 321 and a second-color light-emitting unit 322”), wherein an exit light center wavelength of the first-color light-emitting component (321) is greater ([0084] – “A wavelength of light emitted from the first-color light-emitting unit 321 is greater than a wavelength of light emitted from the second-color light-emitting unit 322”) than an exit light center wavelength of the second-color light-emitting component (322); and
the plurality of microlens (61 – Fig. 2 – [0082] – “protruding arc surface on the first encapsulation structure 61 can function like a convex lens”) comprises a first microlens (611 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “the first encapsulation structure 61 includes a first encapsulation sub-structure 611 and a second encapsulation sub-structure 612”) and a second microlens (612 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “the first encapsulation structure 61 includes a first encapsulation sub-structure 611 and a second encapsulation sub-structure 612”), wherein the first microlens (611 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “first encapsulation sub-structure 611 corresponds to the first-color light-emitting unit 321”) is disposed on the first surface of the first-color light-emitting component (321), and the second microlens (612) is disposed on the first surface of the second-color light-emitting component (322 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “the second encapsulation sub-structure 612 corresponds to the second-color light-emitting unit 322”), and
wherein a refractive index of the first microlens is greater than a refractive index of the second microlens; or, a radius of curvature (r1 – Fig. 6 – [0088] – “the radius of curvature r1 of the first arc corresponding to the top surface of the first encapsulation sub-structure 611”) of a surface of the first microlens (611) facing away from the circuit substrate is less than ([0088] – “the radius of curvature r1 of the first arc corresponding to the top surface of the first encapsulation sub-structure 611 is set smaller than the radius of curvature r2 of the second arc corresponding to the top surface of the second encapsulation sub-structure 612”) a radius of curvature (r2 – Fig. 6 – [0088] – “the radius of curvature r2 of the second arc corresponding to the top surface of the second encapsulation sub-structure 612”) of a surface of the second microlens (612) facing away from the circuit substrate (10 – Fig. 6 – [0084] – “base substrate 10”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting component structure as taught by Liu into Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0005] – “a display panel, a display device, and a preparation method, so as to adjust the light extraction of the display panel, solve issues about the reflectivity or the light extraction efficiency of the display panel, and improve a display effect.”
Regarding claim 15, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. Bang further teaches
wherein
the circuit substrate (CS) includes a bonding region ([0026] – “dam
structures 114 may include bonding” – this is interpreted as the bonding region is contact region of CS and 114 – Fig. 2 shows this) configured to bond at least
one of a driver chip or a flexible wiring board (CS – [0024] – “Although not shown, the base plate 112 may be a printed circuit board (PCB) in which and/or on which circuit patterns are formed. For example, the base plate 112 may include a stack structure including a metal base including, e.g., aluminum, an insulating layer covering the metal base, and the circuit patterns provided on the insulating layer”).
Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Liu teaches
the plurality of light-emitting components comprise a first light-emitting component (31 – Fig. 1 – [0039] – “first light-emitting units 31”) and a second light-emitting component (32 – Fig. 1 – [0059] – “second light-emitting unit 32”), and a distance between the first light-emitting component (31) and the bonding region (although not shown, the bonding region can be located at the bottom of Fig. 1 – hereinafter ‘BR’) is greater (Fig. 1 annotated, see below) than a distance between the second light-emitting component (32) and the bonding region (BR); and
the plurality of microlens (61 – Fig. 2 – [0082] – “protruding arc surface on the first encapsulation structure 61 can function like a convex lens”) comprises a first microlens (611 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “the first encapsulation structure 61 includes a first encapsulation sub-structure 611 and a second encapsulation sub-structure 612”) and a second microlens (612 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “the first encapsulation structure 61 includes a first encapsulation sub-structure 611 and a second encapsulation sub-structure 612”), wherein the first microlens (611 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “first encapsulation sub-structure 611 corresponds to the first-color light-emitting unit 321”) is disposed on the first surface of the first-color light-emitting component (321), and the second microlens (612) is disposed on the first surface of the second-color light-emitting component (322 – Fig. 2 – [0084] – “the second encapsulation sub-structure 612 corresponds to the second-color light-emitting unit 322”),
wherein one of the following is satisfied: a refractive index of the first microlens is greater than a refractive index of the second microlens, or, a radius of curvature (r1 – Fig. 6 – [0088] – “the radius of curvature r1 of the first arc corresponding to the top surface of the first encapsulation sub-structure 611”) of a surface of the first microlens (611) facing away from the circuit substrate is less than ([0088] – “the radius of curvature r1 of the first arc corresponding to the top surface of the first encapsulation sub-structure 611 is set smaller than the radius of curvature r2 of the second arc corresponding to the top surface of the second encapsulation sub-structure 612”) a radius of curvature (r2 – Fig. 6 – [0088] – “the radius of curvature r2 of the second arc corresponding to the top surface of the second encapsulation sub-structure 612”) of a surface of the second microlens (612) facing away from the circuit substrate (10 – Fig. 6 – [0084] – “base substrate 10”).
PNG
media_image4.png
687
902
media_image4.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, to integrate the light-emitting component structure as taught by Liu into Bang, Yamauchi, Keates, and Oyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 14.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Yamauchi, Keates, and Shi et al. (US 20250133941 A1 – hereinafter Shi).
Regarding independent claim 17, Bang teaches:
A display panel ([0052] – “a display apparatus including the light source
module 100” – hereinafter ‘DP’), comprising:
a circuit substrate ([0024] – “Although not shown, the base plate 112 may be a
printed circuit board (PCB) in which and/or on which circuit patterns are formed. For example, the base plate 112 may include a stack structure including a metal base including, e.g., aluminum, an insulating layer covering the metal base, and the circuit patterns provided on the insulating layer” – hereinafter ‘CS’);
a plurality of light-emitting components (120 – Fig. 3 – [0023] – “plurality of
light-emitting devices 120”) located on a side of the circuit substrate (CS), wherein a light-emitting component (120) of the plurality of light-emitting components (120) comprises a first surface (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – [0038] – “encapsulation layer 130 may include a side encapsulation layer 132 and a top encapsulation layer 134” – hereinafter ‘S1’) facing away from the circuit substrate (CS), at least one of the light-emitting component (120) or the circuit substrate (CS) comprises a second surface (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – [0038] – “encapsulation layer 130 may include a side encapsulation layer 132 and a top encapsulation layer 134” – hereinafter ‘S2’), the second surface at least partially surrounds the first surface, one of the first surface (S1) or the second surface (S2) is a hydrophilic surface, and an other of the first surface (S1) or the second surface (S2) is a hydrophobic surface; and
a plurality of microlenses, wherein an orthographic projection of a microlens of the plurality of microlenses on a plane where the circuit substrate (CS) is located does not overlap an orthographic projection of the first surface on the plane where the circuit substrate (CS) is located and overlaps an orthographic projection of the second surface on the plane where the circuit substrate (CS) is located.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bang does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Yamauchi teaches
the second surface (3 – Fig. 1 – [0018] – “barrier layer 3” – this corresponds to the second surface) at least partially surrounds (Fig. 1 shows this) the first surface (62 – Fig. 1 – [0039] – “upper filler layer 62” – this corresponds to the first surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second surface structure as taught by Yamauchi into Bang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamauchi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of creating a barrier for to stop the first surface.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Bang and Yamauchi do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Keates teaches
a hydrophilic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533”),
a hydrophobic surface ([0076] – “titanium oxide layer 530 has a portion with a hydrophilic surface 532 and another portion with a hydrophobic surface 533” – this is interpreted as hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces in contact with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate hydrophilic surface in contact with a hydrophobic surface as taught by Keates into Bang and Yamauchi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Keates in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of facilitating attachment of other elements onto the different surfaces based on their moisture content.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Shi teaches
a plurality of microlenses (131 – Fig. 1 – [0050] – “lens structure 131 located on a side of the encapsulation layer 120 away from the light emitting device layer 110”), wherein an orthographic projection of a microlens (131) of the plurality of microlenses (131) on a plane where the circuit substrate is located does not overlap an orthographic projection of the first surface (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘S1’) on the plane where the circuit substrate is located and overlaps an orthographic projection of the second surface (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘S2’).
PNG
media_image5.png
369
1174
media_image5.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, to integrate the microlens structure as taught by Shi into Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Shi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results that prevents [0004] – “In order to improve the light emitting efficiency of the display apparatus, an optical adjustment layer can be disposed in the optical path region of the display apparatus to adjust the incident angle of light on the critical surface between the inner and outer optical path regions of the display apparatus, so as to reduce the probability or degree of total internal reflection.
[0005] However, the display apparatus with an optical adjustment layer is prone to undesirable phenomena such as bubbles or cracks, and the reliability of the product is insufficient, which seriously affects the service life and display effect of the product.”
Regarding claim 18, Bang as modified by Yamauchi, Keates, and Shi, teaches claim 17 from which claim 18 depends. Bang further teaches
the circuit substrate (CS).
Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Shi teaches
further comprising a planarization layer (132 – Fig. 1 – [0058] – “the
planarization layer 132”) located on a side of the microlens (131) facing away from
the circuit substrate, wherein
a refractive index of the planarization layer is greater ([0058] – “the refractive index of the first lens structure 131 is smaller than the refractive index of the planarization layer 132”) than a refractive index of the microlens (131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the microlens structure as taught by Shi into Bang, Yamauchi, and Keates.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Shi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights