DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 07/06/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that inventions are “similar and can be searched and examined without imposing additional search burden. This is not found persuasive because the two species require fundamentally different interconnections, per the terms in which the Applicant defines them in the claims (conductive patterns, connection patterns, etc.).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/06/26.
Claims 1-5 are allowable. The restriction requirement between Species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 07/06/26, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is maintained because the nonelected claims do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed (once the 112 rejections described below are overcome).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is US-2022/0392876 (see FIG. 7B; teaches “first conductive layer” (patterns in 33c), which has “conductive pattern groups”, including “first conductive” and “second conductive” patterns, 33c having shape of island, first insulating layer (directly above 33c), “second conductive layer” (33b), “pad groups, including the pads (33a directly under 21), “light-emitting elements” (21), and their electrodes (directly underneath 21, above 33a). However, the ‘896 does not disclose “wherein, in a top view of the pixel structure, the first pad is overlapped with the first conductive pattern and a portion of the connection pattern”. Hence, claims 1-5 are indicated as allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 1 is 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 in part “the connection pattern is located outside an area of second pads of the pad groups”. Claim 1 is part of originally filed claims. Therefore, it by definition has no new matter, and is considered enabled. However, looking at FIG. 1, and marking thereon between the second pads (142; specifically, top right one) and connection pattern (123; specifically, across the top) it is not clear where the connection pattern ends near the top right corner of the drawing and whether it actually is “located outside an area of second pads”. Please clarify the extent of 123 near the top right corner of the drawing, and whether the drawing reflects the claims. Since Examiner is unsure whether (1) he is reading the drawing right or (2) whether he is reading the claims right or (3) whether there is a genuine issue, a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection seemed appropriate, since it would give Applicant the opportunity to clarify the record.
Claims 2-5 include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore, are unclear for the same reason.
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
09/29/26
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights