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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 23, 2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to add a limitation “a second conductive layer disposed on and in contact with the first conductive layer and disposed in the light emitting area”. The term “in contact with” has a broad scope. It could be used to indicate that the contact is physical and/or to indicate that the contact is electrical. If the Applicant is using the term to indicate that the second conductive layer is in physical contact with the first conductive layer, then there is no support for that interpretation in either the specification or in the drawings. The Applicant has asserted that the support for the amendment could be found in Par. 0096 of the specification and in Fig. 6 of the drawings of the instant application. However, Par. 0096 only says “[t]he second conductive layer CL2 may contact the connection pattern CP through a fourth contact hole formed in the second via insulating layer VIA2”. In other words, the second conductive layer is not in direct physical contact with the first conductive layer. Fig. 6 also does not show any physical contact. Thus Par. 0096 and Fig. 6, at most, support an electrical connection between the second conductive layer and the first conductive layer through a via contact in the non-light emitting area rather than a direct physical contact between the two conductive layers. Therefore, the Applicant is claiming more than is supported by the drawings and the specification. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested. Claims 2-6 & 8-15 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejections based on their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 were 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 has been amended to add a limitation “a second conductive layer disposed on and in contact with the first conductive layer and disposed in the light emitting area”. The term “in contact with” has a broad scope. It could be used to indicate that the contact is physical and/or to indicate that the contact is electrical. If the Applicant is using the term to indicate that the second conductive layer is in physical contact with the first conductive layer, then there is no support for that interpretation in either the specification or in the drawings. The Applicant has asserted that the support for the amendment could be found in Par. 0096 of the specification and in Fig. 6 of the drawings of the instant application. However, Par. 0096 only says “[t]he second conductive layer CL2 may contact the connection pattern CP through a fourth contact hole formed in the second via insulating layer VIA2”. In other words, the second conductive layer is not in direct physical contact with the first conductive layer. Fig. 6 also does not show any physical contact. Thus Par. 0096 and Fig. 6, at most, support an electrical connection between the second conductive layer and the first conductive layer through a via contact in the non-light emitting area rather than a direct physical contact between the two conductive layers. Therefore, the Applicant is claiming more than is supported by the drawings and the specification. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Claims 2-6 & 8-15 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejections based on their dependencies on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments made to the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 7: The prior art of record to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious the instant invention, particularly characterized by a display device comprising: a light emitting area and a non-light emitting area adjacent to the light emitting area; a first conductive layer disposed on a substrate in the light emitting area and the non-light emitting area; a second conductive layer disposed on the first conductive layer and disposed in the light emitting area; a first insulating film disposed on the first conductive layer, overlapping the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer in the light emitting area, and having a first permittivity; and a second insulating film disposed between the first insulating film and the second conductive layer, disposed in the light emitting area and the non-light emitting area, overlapping the first insulating film and the first conductive layer, and having a second permittivity greater than the first permittivity, wherein the first conductive layer defines at least one first opening disposed in the light emitting area, the first insulating film defines at least one second opening disposed in the light emitting area, and wherein-the first opening and the second opening overlap each other.
The most relevant prior art reference due to Fish et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0132051 A1) substantially discloses a display device comprising: a light emitting area and a non-light emitting area adjacent to the light emitting area (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4); a first conductive layer disposed on a substrate in the light emitting area and the non-light emitting area (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – first conductive layer 132 (first capacitor plate); substrate 120); a second conductive layer disposed on the first conductive layer and disposed in the light emitting area (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – second conductive layer 27); a first insulating film disposed on the first conductive layer, overlapping the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer in the light emitting area, and having a first permittivity (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – first insulating film 130 (first insulating layer) having a first dielectric permittivity); and
PNG
media_image1.png
236
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second insulating film disposed between the first insulating film and the second conductive layer, disposed in the light emitting area and the non-light emitting area, overlapping the first insulating film and the first conductive layer, and having a second permittivity greater than the first permittivity (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – second insulating film 140 (first insulating layer) having a second dielectric permittivity; this prior art clearly teaches that the permittivity of the second insulating film, at least according to one embodiment, may be greater than the permittivity of the first insulating film).
Additionally, the prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
However, none of these prior art references indicated above or the prior arts made of record in form PTO-892, disclose all the limitations of claim 7 (the individual limitations may be found in a plurality of prior arts but there is no motivation to combine). Because no reference alone teaches all the limitations, nor is there any motivation to combine the prior arts to construct all the limitations of this independent claim, claim 7 is deemed patentable over the prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
09/27/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
