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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, with traverse, of claims 1-10 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
Applicant’s traversal arguments, in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made” with the reply “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 06/22/2026, see “Furthermore, applicant asserts that Species I and Species II all correspond to the same concept, which is an electronic device comprising a substrate, a thin-film transistor, a first organic layer having a via, a transparent conductive layer, a second organic layer
at least partially disposed in the via, and a first spacer disposed on the second organic layer. Therefore, applicant believes, under the same concept, Species I and Species II may require the same field of search, wherein the same search strategies or search queries may be adopted. There should be no serious search burden if examining Species I and Species II at the same time. For the above reason, reconsideration and
withdrawal of this restriction are hereby respectfully requested”, (remarks on page 6) have been fully considered. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments for the following reasons:
Firstly, Species I-II, as claimed, are independent or distinct because they have been disclosed in separate figures and different embodiments, and are characterized by mutually exclusive characteristics.
Species I-II as claimed are independent or distinct because they have been disclosed in separate figures and different embodiments, and are characterized by mutually exclusive characteristics as follows:
Regarding Species I and II, are mutually exclusive with “a transparent conductive layer disposed on the first organic layer and electrically connected to the thin-film transistor through the via; a second organic layer at least partially disposed in the via; a first spacer disposed on the second organic layer; and a second spacer disposed on the first spacer, wherein the second organic layer, the first spacer and the second spacer at least partially overlap each other” (Fig. 3; [0047]) in Species I, and, “a transparent conductive layer disposed on the first organic layer and electrically connected to the thin-film transistor through the via; a second organic layer at least partially disposed in the via; and a first spacer disposed on the second organic layer and overlapping the second organic layer, wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the first spacer and the second organic layer, in a cross-sectional view of the electronic device, a first width of the first spacer close to the second organic layer is less than a second width of the first spacer away from the second organic layer” (Fig. 5; [0054-0056]) in Species II.
Secondly, there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reasons apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter as exemplified by the aforementioned mutually exclusive characteristics, while the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (different search strategies or search queries, as evidenced by the above-defined distinctions between the species) (see MPEP § 808.02) and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (114; Fig 6; [0092]) = (element 114; Figure No. 6; Paragraph No. [0092]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. (US 20240176197 A1; hereinafter Ishikawa, using foreign priority date 11/25/2022, a machine translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches an electronic device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0002+], and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (100; Fig. 9; see [0032]);
a thin-film transistor (Fig. 9; see [0038-0045]) disposed on the substrate (100; Fig. 9; see [0032]);
a first organic layer (115; Fig. 9; see [0046]) disposed on the thin-film transistor (Fig. 9; see [0038-0045]) and having a via (130; Fig. 9; see [0047, 0071]);
a transparent conductive layer (116; Fig. 9; see [0045-0047]) disposed on the first organic layer (115; Fig. 9; see [0046]) and electrically connected to the thin-film transistor through the via (130; Fig. 9; see [0047, 0071]);
a second organic layer (30; Fig. 9; see [0071]) at least partially disposed in the via (130; Fig. 9; see [0047, 0071]);
a first spacer (10; Fig. 9; see [0071]) disposed on the second organic layer (30; Fig. 9; see [0071]); and
a second spacer (203; Fig. 9; see [0054, 0063]) disposed on the first spacer (10; Fig. 9; see [0071]), wherein the second organic layer (30; Fig. 9; see [0071]), the first spacer (10; Fig. 9; see [0071]) and the second spacer (203; Fig. 9; see [0054, 0063]) at least partially overlap each other.
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Ishikawa further comprising: an opposite substrate (200; Fig. 9; see [0054, 0032]) disposed corresponding to the substrate (100; Fig. 9; see [0032]), wherein in a cross-sectional view of the electronic device (see Fig. 9), a first width (width in the left-right direction) of the second spacer (203; Fig. 9; see [0054, 0063]) close to the opposite substrate (200; Fig. 9; see [0054, 0032]) is greater than a second width (width in the up-down direction) of the second spacer (203; Fig. 9; see [0054, 0063]) close to the first spacer (10; Fig. 9; see [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the transparent conductive layer (116; Fig. 9; see [0045-0047]) is disposed between the first organic layer (115; Fig. 9; see [0046]) and the second organic layer (30; Fig. 9; see [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Ishikawa further teaches wherein in a cross-sectional view of the electronic device (see Fig. 9), a top width of the second spacer (203; Fig. 9; see [0054, 0063]) is greater than a top width of the first spacer (30; Fig. 9; see [0071]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20240176197 A1; hereinafter Ishikawa, using foreign priority date 11/25/2022, a machine translation is attached), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the transparent conductive layer (116; Fig. 9; see [0045-0047]) is disposed (see below for “between”) the second organic layer (30; Fig. 9; see [0071]) and the first spacer (10; Fig. 9; see [0071]).
As noted above, Ishikawa does not expressly disclose “wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the second organic layer and the first spacer”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the second organic layer and the first spacer” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the second organic layer and the first spacer). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the second organic layer and the first spacer” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, Figure 1 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as a transparent conductive layer (140a) is not between the second organic layer (130) and the first spacer (400). Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the second organic layer and the first spacer”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the second organic layer and the first spacer” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the second organic layer and the first spacer” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the second organic layer and the first spacer” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed between the second organic layer and the first spacer” is not patentable over Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the transparent conductive layer (116; Fig. 9; see [0045-0047]) comprises (see below for “a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps”) the first spacer (10; Fig. 9; see [0071]).
As noted above, Ishikawa does not expressly disclose “wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps the first spacer”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps the first spacer” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps the first spacer). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps the first spacer” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, Figures 2 and 3 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as a transparent conductive layer without a hollow portion overlapping the first spacer. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps the first spacer”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps the first spacer” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps the first spacer” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps the first spacer” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the transparent conductive layer comprises a hollow portion, and the hollow portion overlaps the first spacer” is not patentable over Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa teaches all of the features of claim 9.
Ishikawa further comprising: a protection layer (117; Fig. 9; see [0048]) disposed on the transparent conductive layer (116; Fig. 9; see [0045-0047]).
4. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20240176197 A1; hereinafter Ishikawa, using foreign priority date 11/25/2022, a machine translation is attached), in view of over Jung et al. (US 20180031890 A1; hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Ishikawa does not expressly teach “a third spacer disposed on the second organic layer; and a fourth spacer disposed on the third spacer, wherein the second organic layer, the third spacer and the fourth spacer at least partially overlap each other, the first spacer and the second spacer abut against each other, and there is a gap between the third spacer and the fourth spacer”.
However, in the analogous art, Jung teaches a display device ([0002]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0002+]) a first lower column spacer (1140; Fig. 18; [0113]) over an organic layer (1130), and a first upper column space (1231; Fig. 18; [0114]) over first lower column spacer (1140; Fig. 18; [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Jung’s multiple spacer layers into Ishikawa’s device, and thereby, modified Ishikawa’s (by Jung) device will have a third spacer (in view of Jung 1140; Fig. 18; [0113]) disposed on the second organic layer (Ishikawa 30; Fig. 9; see [0071]); and a fourth spacer (in view of Jung 1231; Fig. 18; [0113]) disposed on the third spacer (in view of Jung 1140; Fig. 18; [0113]), wherein the second organic layer (Ishikawa 30; Fig. 9; see [0071]), the third spacer (in view of Jung 1140; Fig. 18; [0113]) and the fourth spacer (in view of Jung 1231; Fig. 18; [0113]) at least partially overlap each other, the first spacer (Ishikawa 10; Fig. 9; see [0071]) and the second spacer (Ishikawa 203; Fig. 9; see [0054, 0063]) abut against each other, and there is a gap between the third spacer (in view of Jung 1140; Fig. 18; [0113]) and the fourth spacer (in view of Jung 1231; Fig. 18; [0113]).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ishikawa in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides multiple spacer layers which provides further protection and helps prevent deformation (Jung [0113-0114, 0150]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ishikawa (by Jung) teaches all of the features of claim 6.
Modified Ishikawa (by Jung) further teaches wherein a thickness of the second spacer (Ishikawa 203; Fig. 9; see [0054, 0063]) and a thickness of the fourth spacer (in view of Jung 1231; Fig. 18; [0113]) are different.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ishikawa (by Jung) teaches all of the features of claim 6.
Modified Ishikawa (by Jung) further teaches wherein a thickness of the first spacer (Ishikawa 10; Fig. 9; see [0071]) and a thickness of the third spacer (in view of Jung 1140; Fig. 18; [0113]) are different.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights