Attorney’s Docket Number: 35769.04544
Filing Date: 11/02/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 09/23/2020 (CON of 17/040,606 now PAT 11,844,255)
12/20/2019 (371 of PCT/CN2019/127146)
Applicants: Wu et al.
Examiner: Younes Boulghassoul
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the Amendment filed on 06/29/2026.
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgment
The Amendment filed on 06/29/2026, responding to the Office action mailed on 04/01/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-20.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s filing of a Terminal Disclaimer has failed to overcome the claim rejections under non-statutory Double Patenting, as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 04/01/2026. Accordingly, some of the non-statutory Double Patenting rejections stand, as detailed below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, as previously formulated in the same Office action. However, applicant’s amendments have raised new issues, and new grounds for rejection are presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Terminal Disclaimer
The application/patent being disclaimed has not been properly identified: Application number and reference application number can't be disclaimed over itself. The terminal disclaimer has been disapproved.
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.
Claims 6, 8-9, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Examiner’s note: The claims are replete with anteceding basis issues and inconsistent terminology for identifying features throughout the claims, thus affecting the clarity of the claims and rendering the claims indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant is requested to thoroughly review ALL claims to resolve said issues, so as to conform to current U.S. practice standards.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the conductive structure layer is electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode.” in L. 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear how the feature is related to the features recited in claims 1-2 or 5, from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 9 depend from claim 6 thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a third via passing through the planarization layer.” in L. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear how the feature is related to the features recited in claims 1-4 or 7, from which claim 4 depends.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 8 thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “same as a material of the source-drain layer.” in L. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear how the feature is related to the features recited in claims 1-4 or 7, from which claim 17 depends.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 15-18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,844,255.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent, and is a broader statement of the invention for which the patent was granted.
Claims 1-4 and 6 of patent No. 11,844,255 anticipate claim 1 of the instant invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 of patent No. 11,844,255 anticipate claim 2 of the instant invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 of patent No. 11,844,255 anticipate claim 3 of the instant invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 of patent No. 11,844,255 anticipate claim 4 of the instant invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 of patent No. 11,844,255 anticipate claim 5 of the instant invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 of patent No. 11,844,255 anticipate claim 7 of the instant invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 of patent No. 11,844,255 anticipate claim 15 of the instant invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 of patent No. 11,844,255 anticipate claim 17 of the instant invention.
Claims 15-18 and 20 of patent No. 11,844,255 anticipate claim 20 of the instant invention.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,844,255 in view of Lee et al. (US2018/0122882).
Regarding Claim 14, claims 1-4 and 6 of PAT 11,844,255 disclose most aspects of the invention including a first electrode layer disposed on a side of the auxiliary electrode layer facing away from the substrate, a light emitting layer disposed on a side of the first electrode layer facing away from the substrate; and a second electrode layer disposed on a side of the light emitting layer facing away from the substrate and connected to the auxiliary electrode layer. However, the claims are silent about the first electrode layer being an anode, and the second electrode layer being a cathode, as required by claim 14.
Lee (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2 and Par. [0038]-[0041]), on the other hand and in the same field of endeavor, teaches an OLED display comprising a light-emitting diode arrangement including progressively stacked anode electrode 132, organic light-emitting layer 134, and cathode electrode 136, and wherein the cathode electrode 136 is connected to a low-voltage supply line via an auxiliary connection electrode 166 to compensate for the high resistance of the cathode material.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first electrode layer being an anode, and the second electrode layer being a cathode in the structure embodied by claims 1-4 and 6 of PAT 11,844,255, because it is known in the OLED display art that an OLED’s electrodes can be arranged such that the bottom electrode is an anode electrically connected to a TFT and the top electrode is a cathode electrically connected to an auxiliary connection electrode to compensate for the high resistance of the cathode, as suggested by Lee, and implementing a known OLED electrode arrangement for its conventional use would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,844,255 in view of Cho et al. (US2017/0148865).
Regarding Claim 16, claims 1-4 and 6 of PAT 11,844,255 disclose most aspects of the invention. However, they are silent about the composition of the auxiliary electrode layer such that a material of the auxiliary electrode layer is metal or alloy.
Cho (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and Par. [0061],[0078],[0087]), on the other hand and in the same field of endeavor, teaches an OLED display comprising a light-emitting diode arrangement, wherein an auxiliary wiring 160a in display area DA is electrically connected to the OLED’s top electrode 230 to decrease its IR drop, and wherein the auxiliary wiring 160a is formed from a metal layer 160 (e.g., one or more of Al, W, Cu…).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a material of the auxiliary electrode layer being metal or alloy in the structure embodied by claims 1-4 and 6 of PAT 11,844,255, because it is known in the OLED display art that auxiliary wirings electrically connected to an OLED’s top electrode can be formed from a metal or alloy, to help decrease the IR drop of said OLED top electrode, as suggested by Cho, and selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. See, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13, and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the claims filed on 06/29/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younes Boulghassoul whose telephone number is (571) 270-5514. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST. 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571) 272-1705. 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.
/YOUNES BOULGHASSOUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights