DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response
The amended claims are still not definite under 112. The examiner is willing to discuss with the applicant how to improve the claim language.
See the new rejections below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner proposes: DISPLAY WITH EACH PIXEL HAVING CONNECTED LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENTS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim1, 3-7, and 25-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is set forth by the applicant in this way:
PNG
media_image1.png
606
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 recites “formed of elongate parts that extends in a diagonal direction”, which has subject-verb disagreement, leading to uncertainty about the number of elongate parts.
It appears in the structure of the claim that “and one of” is listed as one of the elements of the pixel. “the pixel includes … one of: the second electrode is formed of connected rectangular parts with four or five light emitting elements arranged in a zigzag formation in the at least one light emitting element ….” Doesn’t make sense grammatically or semantically, as the list of elements of the pixel are structural elements and then clauses that do not recite structural elements. It appears that “and one of” requires that one of the subsequent four limitations be true, and the examiner will interpret it in that way here. It is confusing that these are listed at a higher level of indentation or nesting in the claim than the introductory phrase “and one of”. Also, it is not clear if “and one of” requires that exactly one of these elements be true, or at least one of them be true.
Claim 1 recites: “four or five light emitting elements arranged in a zigzag formation in the at least one light emitting element … four light emitting elements arranged in a zigzag formation in the at least one light emitting element … two light emitting elements arranged in a linear formation in the at least one light emitting element”. All of these (alternative) limitations recite limit emitting elements in the at least one light emitting element. This is confusing, as the same language is used for different levels of the device. A “light emitting element” should not contain “light emitting elements”, as this is not definite claim language.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang, CN 103400834 A. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang.
Claim 1: Liang discloses a display device (abstract) comprising: a pixel (group connected by lead 10) having a plane extending in a first direction and a second direction (any two perpendicular directions in the major plane of the device), the first and second directions being perpendicular, wherein the pixel includes:
a first electrode (6);
at least one light emitting element (2) disposed on the first electrode;
and a second electrode including at least one overlapping part (5, 11) overlapping the at least one light emitting element and including at least one opening (the space between the light emitting elements not covered by 10) not overlapping the at least one light emitting element (FIG. 2a),
and one of:
the second electrode is formed of connected rectangular parts with four or five light emitting elements arranged in a zigzag formation in the at least one light emitting element,
the second electrode is formed of elongate parts that extends in a diagonal direction, which is defined diagonally with respect to the first and second directions, with four light emitting elements arranged in a zigzag formation in the at least one light emitting element,
the second electrode is formed of connected rectangular parts with two light emitting elements arranged in a linear formation in the at least one light emitting element (FIGS. 1, 4a, 5a, etc.; the top and middle light emitting elements in e.g. FIG. 4a correspond to the claimed two light-emitting elements),
and the second electrode is formed of connected rectangular parts (FIGS. 1, 4a, 5a, etc.) with one light emitting element (any of 2) arranged in the at least one light emitting element.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
282
292
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Liang discloses that the at least one light emitting element includes a first light emitting element, a second light emitting element, a third light emitting element (FIGS. 1, 4a, etc.). However, additional parts playing the same function are generally not a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.o4. Here, it would have been an ordinary design choice to decide how many to include, including a fourth and a fifth.
Liang thus modified would have the second electrode includes a first overlapping part, a second overlapping part, a third overlapping part, a fourth overlapping part, and a fifth overlapping part that overlaps the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, the third light emitting element, the fourth light emitting element, and the fifth light emitting element, respectively. The overlapping part is 5 for each respective light emitting element.
Claim 25: the at least one overlapping part overlaps an entirety of each of the at least one light emitting element, the at least one opening not overlapping any of the at least one light emitting element (FIGS. 2a, 5a).
Claim 27: the second electrode is comprised of a transparent conductive material selected from a group consisting of ITO, IZO, ZnO, IGZO, ITZO, and PE-DOT, and light produced by the at least one light emitting element is viewed from an outside through the second electrode. “ITO transparent electrode 11.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897