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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 and 14-15, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between species A and B, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 12/12/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 9-10 and 14-15 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,626,469 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,626,469 B2 discloses the limitations of claims 1-3, and states “a display device comprising: a substrate; and a wiring layer disposed on the substrate, the wiring layer including a conductive metal layer and a metal compound layer of the conductive metal layer, wherein the metal compound layer surrounds the conductive metal layer; wherein the wiring layer includes a first conductive metal layer, a second conductive metal layer, a third conductive metal layer, and a first metal compound layer which are sequentially disposed on the substrate, wherein the first conductive metal layer and the third conductive metal layer include a first metal, the second conductive metal layer includes a second metal different from the first metal, and the first metal compound layer includes the second metal, wherein the first metal compound layer covers a top surface of the third conductive metal layer, and wherein the first metal is titanium (Ti), the second metal is copper (Cu), and the first metal compound is at least one of copper oxide (CuOx) or copper nitride (CuNx)… further comprising: a second metal compound layer surrounding a side surface of the first conductive metal layer and having a light reflectance lower than that of the first conductive metal layer, the second metal compound layer including a metal included in the first conductive metal layer; a third metal compound layer surrounding a side surface of the second conductive metal layer and having a light reflectance lower than that of the second conductive metal layer, the third metal compound layer including a metal included in the second conductive metal layer; and a fourth metal compound layer surrounding a side surface of the third conductive metal layer and having a light reflectance lower than that of the third conductive metal layer, the fourth metal compound layer including a metal included in the third conductive metal layer”.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,626,469 B2 in view of Lee (Pat. No. US 9,608,049 B2).
Regarding claim 11, claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,626,469 B2 do not specifically disclose the limitations of claim 11. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches the thin film transistor 30 shown in FIG. 1 is a driving thin film transistor, and the pixel circuit further includes a switching thin film transistor, wherein the switching thin film transistor is used as a switching element that selects a pixel for light emission, and the driving thin film transistor applies power for light emission of the selected pixel to the corresponding pixel (column 5 lines 10-21).
Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 11,626,469 B2 in view of Lee teaches a transistor electrically connected to the emission layer and including a semiconductor layer, wherein the first signal line is disposed between the substrate and the semiconductor layer, as a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reasons to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Prior Art
Valerio et al. (WO 2011/054814 A1) discloses an electrode comprising a substrate (1) and a layered structure comprising an electrically conductive film (2) in contact with at least one ultra-thin metal film (3), wherein the two films are of different materials and said electrically conductive film is selected from Cu, Au, Ag, Al and their mixtures; said ultra-thin metal film is selected from Ni, Cr, Ti, Pt, Ag, Au, Al and their mixtures; further comprising at least a further film (4) in contact with at least one ultra-thin metal film, wherein said further film is selected from the group of (i) nickel oxides, copper oxides, chromium oxides, titanium oxides, Ta or Nb doped titanium oxide, calcium oxides, magnesium oxides, aluminum oxide, tin oxides, doped tin oxide, indium oxides, zinc oxides, Al or Ga doped zinc oxide, ITO, and their mixtures, or from the group of (ii) Ni, Cr, Au, Ag, Ti, Ca, Pt, Mg, Al, Sn, In, Zn and their mixtures.
However, Valerio neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole, whether considered alone or in combination, absent impermissible hindsight. In particular, prior art of record does not teach the following allowable limitations:
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under the double patenting rejection described above, but would be allowable if amended, or a timely filed terminal disclaimer may be used to overcome the obviousness-type double patenting rejection over the prior patent.
Claims 4-10 and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claims, wherein the first signal line includes: a first layer including a refractory metal; a second layer disposed on the first layer and including a low-resistance metal; a third layer disposed on the second layer and including a first metal oxide; and a fourth layer disposed on the third layer and including a second metal oxide, and the first metal oxide of the third layer includes the low-resistance metal of the second layer. Claims 2-15 are included likewise as they depend from claim 1.
With respect to claim 16, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claims, a third insulating layer disposed on the second conductive layer; a third conductive layer disposed on the third insulating layer; a fourth insulating layer disposed on the third conductive layer; and an emission layer disposed on the fourth insulating layer and electrically connected to the third conductive layer, wherein each of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer includes: a first layer including a refractory metal; a second layer disposed on the first layer and including a low-resistance metal; a third layer disposed on the second layer and including a first metal oxide; and a fourth layer disposed on the third layer and including a second metal oxide, the third layer and the fourth layer of the first conductive layer are removed from a first portion of the first conductive layer, and the third layer and the fourth layer of the second conductive layer are removed from a second portion of the second conductive layer. Claims 17-20 are included likewise as they depend from claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALIHEH MALEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1874. The examiner can normally be reached M/T/W/R/F, 8:30-5.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
September 15, 2026
/MALIHEH MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights