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
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed 7/24/26 on is acknowledged.
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 1-16 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, last two lines, comprises the phrase “each of the second portions is bent from a corresponding one of the first portions”. The phrase is indefinite as it is not clear what the word “bent” entails. Applicants’ Specification in Figures 8-9 and corresponding text shows the second portion extending from the first portion in a diagonal direction. A practitioner of the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the afore mentioned limitation, and therefore the Claim is indefinite. Further clarification and/or correction is required. Claims 2-16 are rejected based on their dependence on Claim 1.
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 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (a) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2021/0351248).
With respect to Claim 1,Lee et al discloses a display panel (Figure 13) comprising a first light-emitting unit (1340) and a second light-emitting unit (another 1340 unit) spaced apart from each other, wherein each of the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit includes an separator (1340) and at least one emitting part (central portion within 1340), the separator (1340) includes a first isolation portion, the first isolation portion (1341 and 1342) includes; first portions (1342 top and bottom) spaced apart from each other; and second portions (1341, left and right), each of the second portions is disposed between corresponding two adjacent ones of the first portions; and each of the second portions is bent (set at a diagonal angle) from a corresponding one of the first portions. See Figure 13 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 171-185.
With respect to Claim 2, Lee et al discloses wherein each one of the second portions extends in a first direction, and each of the first portions extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction. See Figure 13, 1341 and 1342.
With respect to Claim 3, Lee et al discloses “the first isolation portion includes third portions, each of the third portions is disposed between corresponding two adjacent ones of the first portions, each one of the third portions is bent from a corresponding one of the first portions, and each of the third portions is spaced apart from a corresponding one of the second portions” See Figure 13, 1343, third portions.
With respect to Claim 11, Lee et al discloses “wherein each of the first light emitting unit and the second light emitting unit includes a first emitting part, a second emitting part and a third emitting part emitting light of different colors” . See paragraphs 65-70 and 95.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al (US 2021/0351248).
Lee et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Lee et a does not disclose “the separator includes one face, another face facing the one face, and a side face disposed between the one face and the another face, in a cross-sectional view, and the side face is inclined with respect to the one face”.
With respect to Claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the limitation “ the separator includes one face, another face facing the one face, and a side face disposed between the one face and the another face, in a cross-sectional view, and the side face is inclined with respect to the one face”, as the presence of faces is inherent. Moreover, with respect to the inclination , changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 12-13 and 15-16 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
September 22, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights