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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B (Claims 12-20) in the reply filed on 2/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no additional search burden as the features of Figure 12 are additive. This is not found persuasive because the claims contain additional limitations which differ in scope, and would create an additional search burden. Rejoinder of claims will be considered after indication of allowable subject matter. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 and (a)@) as being anticipated by Okuyama et al (US 7,47,629).
With respect to Claim 12, Okuyama et al discloses a light emitting display device (Figures 1-2 and 11) comprising: a first display area (Figure 2, 4 peripheral area); and a second display area (Figure 2, 4, central area) surrounded by the first display area and including a light transmitting area, wherein the second display area includes a pixel driver (Figure 11, 241) and a main light emitting diode ( Figure 11, 61) and an additional light emitting diode (Figure 11, 62) electrically connected to the pixel driver, the main light emitting diode and the additional light emitting diode each include a first electrode, an emission layer and a second electrode (23a, 70a, 50a and 23b, 70b and 50) , and the second electrode (50a) of the main light emitting diode is electrically connected to the first electrode (23b) of the additional light emitting diode (Figure 11). See Figures 1-2 and corresponding text, especially columns 6-7 and 21-22.
With respect to Claim 13, Okuyama et al discloses wherein the second electrode (50a) of the main light emitting diode is electrically disconnected from the second electrode (50)of the additional light emitting diode by a separator (48 and 25). See Figure 11.
With respect to Claim 14, Okuyama et al further comprising a pixel defining layer (50b) including an opening overlapping the first electrode of the main light emitting diode and the first electrode of the additional light emitting diode, wherein the separator (48 and 25, Figure 11 upside down) is disposed on the pixel defining layer, and the separator has a protruding structure including an inversely tapered side wall (25). See Figure 11.
With respect to Claim 16, Okuyama et al further discloses a pixel defining layer including an opening overlapping (Figure 11, between 50b) the first electrode of the main light emitting diode and the first electrode of an additional light emitting diode, wherein the separator has a concave groove in the pixel defining layer (25 and 48).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama et al (US 7,47,629).
Okuyama et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Okuyama et al does not explicitly disclose an additional separator and the additional components of the first display area which are required in the second display area of Claim 13.
With respect to Claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the additional components in the Okuyama et al reference, as duplication of parts for their known benefit is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, with respect to the limitation pertaining to different voltages, the application of different voltages would be a mere functional limitation which would not affect the structure of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 17 and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
May 2, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights