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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 1 should not be written as a long sentence. The examiner offers the following partial suggestion using semi-colons to clearly establish what is included and excluded (beginning and end) by the alternative language of the claim (as shown below):
“(Currently Amended) A display panel, comprising:
a base substrate;
a plurality of island regions which are disposed on the base substrate and are spaced apart from each other;
hole regions disposed between adjacent island regions and bridge regions connecting adjacent island regions, each of the island regions comprises a structural film layer disposed on the base substrate;
a cathode disposed on a side of the structural film layer away from the base substrate, the structural film layer comprises at least one effective light emitting region and at least one lapping region, the cathode comprises at least one cathode part and at least one lapping part, wherein an orthographic projection of the at least one cathode part on the base substrate is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the at least one effective light emitting region on the base substrate; and an orthographic projection of the at least one lapping part on the base substrate is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the at least one lapping region on the base substrate”.
These are examiner suggested ways to correct the language but are not limited. The applicant should make sure that the claim language is grammatically correct and to avoid antecedent basis issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
2. Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1:
*The limitation “island regions” (lines 3, 4) lacks antecedent basis as the claim does not previously or positively recite “island regions”. Note that Claim 1 recited the limitation “a plurality of island regions”.
Claim 2 recited the limitation " the lapping part ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recited the limitations "the first cathode part", "the second cathode part", and “the lapping part”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
*The Examiner suggests re-writing the limitation of “one first cathode part, one second cathode part and one lapping part” to “a first cathode part, a second cathode part and a lapping part”.
Claim 4 recited the limitation “the lapping part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recited the limitation “the lapping part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recited the limitations "the first cathode part", and "the second cathode part”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recited the limitations "the first cathode part", "the second cathode part", "the third cathode part", "the fourth cathode part", and “the lapping part”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
*The Examiner suggests re-writing the limitation of “one first cathode part, one second cathode part, one third cathode part, one fourth cathode part, and one lapping part” to “a first cathode part, a second cathode part, a third cathode part, a fourth cathode part, and a lapping part”.
Claim 9 recited the limitation “the lapping part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recited the limitations "the first cathode part", "the second cathode part", "the third cathode part", and "the fourth cathode part". There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 6, 10-12 & 14-20 are also rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-1798. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm. 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 attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke H can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/DAVID VU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818