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 .
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 1-2 and 4-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 19-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/689,927. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons cited below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current Application #: 18/278,480
Copending Application #: 18/689,927
Claim 1 recites “A light-emitting device comprising: a bank provided with a through-hole including an opening sidewall that is inclined; a lower layer electrode formed on the bank, such that the lower layer electrode closes the through-hole; an upper layer electrode formed above the lower layer electrode; an electroluminescent (EL) layer formed between the lower layer electrode and the upper layer electrode, such that the EL layer is adjacent to the lower layer electrode and the upper layer electrode, a first refractive index layer having a refractive index higher than 1.7; and a second refractive index layer having a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the first refractive index layer,
wherein the lower layer electrode is provided with an inclined face along at least a portion of the opening sidewall, the EL layer includes at least a light-emitting layer and is provided with an inclined face along at least a portion of the inclined face of the lower layer electrode, the upper layer electrode is provided with an inclined face along at least a portion of the inclined face of the EL layer, the first refractive index layer and the second refractive index layer are formed in this stated order on the upper layer electrode at the through-hole.”
See claims 1 and 2;
Claim 2 recites “an angle formed by a lower face of the bank and the opening sidewall is equal to or greater than 20˚ and equal to or less than 30˚.”
See claim 3;
Claim 4 recites “an aperture diameter of the through-hole on a lower end side is equal to or greater than 10 µm and equal to or less than 20 µm.”
See claim 4;
Claim 5 recites “a height between an upper end and a lower end of the through-hole is equal to or greater than 1 µm and equal to or less than 4 µm.”
See claim 5;
Claim 6 recites “the light-emitting layer is a quantum dot light-emitting layer including a quantum dot.”
See claim 10;
Claim 7 recites “a plurality of subpixels, wherein the light-emitting device is a display device, and the bank includes at least one of the through-holes in each subpixel of the plurality of subpixels.”
See claim 11;
Claim 8 recites “two or more of the plurality of through-holes are provided in each subpixel of the plurality of subpixels.”
See claim 12;
Claim 9 recites “an array substrate including a plurality of thin film transistors; and a plurality of connection electrodes each formed on the array substrate for a corresponding one of the plurality of subpixels and each connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of thin film transistors, wherein the bank is formed on the array substrate, such that the bank covers the plurality of connection electrodes with the at least one of the plurality of through-holes that is exposing a portion of the plurality of connection electrodes, and the lower layer electrode is connected to the plurality of connection electrodes at the at least one of the plurality of through-holes.”
See claim 13;
Claim 10 recites “the plurality of subpixels includes a red subpixel, a green subpixel, and a blue subpixel, the lower layer electrode includes at least a reflective electrode and a light-transmissive electrode formed on the reflective electrode, and in at least two subpixels of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel, layer thicknesses of the light-transmissive electrodes differ from each other.”
See claim 14;
Claim 11 recites “the lower layer electrode is formed into an island shape for each of the plurality of subpixels.”
See claim 15;
Claim 12 recites “an edge cover formed on the bank, the edge cover including another through-hole corresponding to the at least one of the plurality of through-holes of the bank, such that the other through-hole opens the at least one of the plurality of through-holes of the bank, wherein the edge cover covers a portion of the lower layer electrode positioned on an upper face of the bank.”
See claim 16;
Claim 13 recites “the lower layer electrode is formed into an island shape for each of the at least one of the plurality of through-holes.”
See claim 17;
Claim 14 recites “the light-emitting device is a light-emitting element.”
See claim 1;
Claim 15 recites “the lower layer electrode is formed only in the at least one through-hole.”
See claim 19;
Claim 16 recites “the lower layer electrode is formed with an edge of the lower layer electrode positioned between an upper end and lower end of the opening sidewall.”
See claim 20;
Claim 17 recites “an edge cover formed on the bank, the edge cover including another through-hole with an opening end on the opening sidewall of the bank, wherein 1/3L<L’<2/3L, wherein L is a length of the opening sidewall of the bank and L’ is a length of a portion of the opening sidewall not covered with the edge cover.”
See claim 21;
Claim 18 recites “A light-emitting device comprising: a bank provided with a through-hole including an opening sidewall, that is inclined; a lower layer electrode formed on the bank, such that the lower layer electrode closes the through-hole; an upper layer electrode formed above the lower layer electrode; and an electroluminescent (EL) layer formed between the lower layer electrode and the upper layer electrode, such that the EL layer is adjacent to the lower layer electrode and the upper layer electrode, wherein the lower layer electrode is provided with an inclined face along at least a portion of the opening sidewall, the EL layer includes at least a light-emitting layer and is provided with an inclined face along at least a portion of the inclined face of the lower layer electrode, the upper layer electrode is provided with an inclined face along at least a portion of the inclined face of the EL layer, and an angle formed by a lower face of the bank and the opening sidewall is equal to or greater than 20˚ and equal to or less than 30˚.”
See claims 1-3;
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the double patenting rejection is improper because “the present application describes a light-emitting device including a layered structure of refractive index material layers of specific bank shapes” as cited in claims 1 and 18; while the co-pending application describes “an auxiliary wiring line (38) and a second through-hole (38a) formed in the auxiliary wiring line, and a specific overlapping relationship thereof.”
In response to that argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, the double patenting rejection was not based on what the drawings look like, instead on what the claims recite. As can be seen from the rejection, all the limitations of the claims of the instant application are presented as limitations in the claims of the co-pending application except in some instances these limitations are presented in different order. This is to say, some of the limitations of the independent claims of the instant application are presented as limitations in the dependent claims of the co-pending application, and vice-versa. Also, some of the limitations are obvious variants. As such, an obvious type double patenting rejection is necessary. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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 ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights