DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was mailed on 1/23/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (device claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 3/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious burden (see 3/23/26 submission, page 8, remarks section) because of “common elements” that “a significant portion… would naturally be found when searching another of the alleged groups.” This is not found persuasive because the serious burden was set forth in sections 1-3 of the restriction requirement. A search for the Group I requires searches in e.g. H10K 59/123 and a search for Group II requires searches in e.g. H10K 59/1201, but a search for Group I does not require a search in H10K 59/1201 and a search for Group II does not require a search in H10K 59/123. Furthermore, text searches to find methods (etching, exposing, etc.) are different than those that can find elements themselves.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 15-21 are withdrawn.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/18/23 and 4/5/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Display panel with protruding portions of a multilayered pixel electrode
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second connected portion and the extension portion include a first tip portion.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The “second connected portion” is identified by the Applicant as CD (see e.g. para 143 and Fig. 5) and is shown as a circled region at the bottom of L1 and L2 in a via hole in layer 50 where it contacts the drain electrode pattern W2. The “extension portion” is identified by the Applicant as CNL (see e.g. para 199 and Fig. 12H) and is shown that it is the middle lateral portion of line CN (see Figs. 5 and 12). The “first tip portion” is identified by the Applicant as TP1 (see e.g. para 211 and Figs. 5 and 12), which is a small circled region far from CNL.
Thus, neither CD or CN as disclosed include TP1 as disclosed.
Note, it is not reasonable to interpret TP1 to be larger than as shown, since claim 1 also requires “the first tip portion… is defined as a portion in which an end of the third layer (which the Applicant identifies as L3) protrudes further outward than an end of the second layer (which the Applicant identifies as L2).”
For these reasons, it is unclear how “the second connected portion and the extension portion include a first tip portion” and the overall geometry of the device is unclear.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first connected portion comprises the first tip portion...”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the disagrees with claim 1 which requires “the first connected portion includes a second tip portion.” The Applicant identifies TP1 as the first tip portion (see e.g. para 211), TP2 as the second tip portion (see e.g. para 211), and CE as the first connected portion (see e.g. para 143). As shown in e.g. Figs. 5 and 12, TP1 and TP2 are far apart and only TP2 is near CE. The disagreement of the requirements of claim 3 with the requirements of claim 1, in light of the teachings in the specification, make the scope of claim 3 unclear.
Claims 4 depends from claim 3 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the open region includes open regions, and the second tip portion includes second tip portions corresponding to the open regions”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: it is not clear how a (single) region may comprise multiple regions; or how a (single) portion may comprise multiple portions; this leads to the overall geometry of the device, and/or the geometry of the open region, and/or the geometry of the second tip portion to be unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the first connected portion comprises first sub-connected portions, and the first sub-connected portions are electrically connected to each other.” The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: this is unclear because the specification does not disclose this limitation at all except in generic terms in para 13-16 and in these generic terms in this claim. Because the specification does not given any example or definition of what the “sub-portions” are, it is unclear how the sub-portions must be differentiated from each other. It is further unclear if any single, continuous CE, would not able to be arbitrarily divided into subportions that read on the claim. However, in such a case, if any first connected portion can arbitrarily be subdivided, and the first connected portion must already be electrically conductive, then claim 6 does not further limit claim 2. Thus, the overall geometry of the first connected portion is unclear.
Claims 7-11 depend from claim 6 and inherit its deficiencies. Several of these claims refer back to the “sub-connected portions” and are unclear for reasons stemming from the issues discussed above.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the sub-open region includes sub-open regions, and the second tip portion includes second tip portions corresponding to the sub-open regions.” The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: it is not clear how a (single) region may comprise multiple regions; or how a (single) portion may comprise multiple portions; this leads to the overall geometry of the device, and/or the geometry of the sub-open region, and/or the geometry of the second tip portion to be unclear.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a first layer (Applicant labels as L1; see e.g. para 202) is disposed below the second layer (Applicant labels as L2; see e.g. para 202), the first end (the first end in the second electrode is not labeled by Applicant) contacts the first layer and the second layer at the second tip portion (Applicant labels as TP2, see e.g. para 148), and the second end (Applicant labels as L2_W, see e.g. para 204) is disposed on the third layer (Applicant labels as L3, see e.g. para 202).”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the first end in the second electrode (which Applicant labels as EL2) contacting the first layer and the second layer is not shown in any disclosed figure. See wherein EN1 only contacts L2, but not L1, because IML (Fig. 6A) or the EN3 part of IML (see Figs. 8A, 10A, and 11B) is in between EN1 and L1. Thus, because the specification does not disclose this feature unambiguously in either text or Figures, it is unclear if this is actually the intended limitation or if something else was intended (e.g. if it is intended that EN1 contact IML, or if IML is intended to contact both L1 and L2, etc.).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
US 2022/0123069 A1 (“Kim”) teaches a similar geometry to that which is claimed,
PNG
media_image3.png
436
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US 2018/0151647 A1 (“Lee”) teaches
PNG
media_image4.png
436
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights