DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed 1/21/2026.
Currently, claims 21-33 are pending, of which claims 23, 25, 29-30 and 32-33 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species I is acknowledged. Applicant did not identify which claims of Invention I belong to Species I, and thus the Examiner wishes to clarify that claims 23, 25 and 29-30 recite features that are mutually exclusive from Species I, and are thus withdrawn from consideration.
Specifically, the features “at least one of the first electrodes connecting the first wire comprises a body portion and a protrusion portion, the protrusion portion protrudes from the body portion toward the first wire, and the protrusion portion and the first wire are arranged side by side in a second direction; the first wire is connected to a middle portion of the first electrode in the second direction, the protrusion portions are disposed in the respective first electrodes on two sides of the first wire, and the protrusion portions of the two first electrodes are disposed on two sides of the first wire in the second direction respectively” (claim 23); “in the first direction, lengths of the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel are consistent, and two side edges of the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel are respectively equally aligned to form a rectangular structure” and “in the second direction that intersects the first direction, lengths of the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel are consistent” (claim 25); and “the first electrode located in the first region is electrically connected to the driving unit through a second wire, and the first electrode located in the second region is disposed independently and is not connected to the driving unit” (claim 29) are features that are mutually exclusive from the features of the elected embodiment represented in FIG. 1-2.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third sub-layer (claim 25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “light transmittance” in the last line should instead be “light transmissive”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “an isolation structure stacked on the pixel definition portion, wherein the isolation structure defines a plurality of first openings, and the light-emitting function structures are isolated by the isolation structure and located in the first openings respectively” in lines 14-16. This subject matter is not disclosed in the originally filed application. Referencing FIG. 2, the light-emitting function structures 320 are formed in an opening 820 that is defined by the pixel definition portions 810. The light-emitting function structures 320 are not formed in the openings 710 defined by the isolation structure 700. Furthermore, the light-emitting function structures 320 are isolated by the pixel definition portions 810. The isolation structure 700 is not present between the light-emitting function structures 320, and thus does not act to isolate them.
Claim 26 recites the same feature via dependency.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the light-emitting function structure is located within the first opening”. This is not supported by the disclosure. Referencing FIG. 2, the light-emitting structure 320 is located in the second opening 820 defined by the pixel definition portions 810 (i.e. not in the first opening 710 defined by the isolation structure 700).
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 21-22, 24, 26-28 and 31 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 21 recites the limitation “the pixel defining portion” in the last line of the claim. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the connection line” in the second-to-last line of the claim. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Presumably, this may refer to one or both of the two connection lines that are claimed, but this is not clear.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the light-emitting function structures are isolated by the isolation structure” as discussed above. It is not clear what “isolated” would mean in this context, as the disclosure shows the isolation structures 700 being in a different plane than the light-emitting function structures.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the first electrode” in line 7. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Presumably, this may refer to one or both of the two or more electrodes that are claimed in claim 24 on which claim 26 depends, but this is not clear.
Furthermore, claim 26 recites the limitation “a pixel opening disposed at the pixel definition portion” in line 12. Referencing FIG. 2, the pixel opening 820 is the space between pixel definition portions 810. In other words, the pixel definition portions define the opening. It then does not make sense that the pixel opening could be “at” the pixel definition portion, which would seem impossible.
Claim 27 recites the limitations “a first electrode” in line 4 and “at least two first electrodes” in line 5. Presumably, the at least two first electrodes recited in line 5 reference the first electrode recited in line 4, but there is not any language tying them together (i.e. “at least two of the first electrodes”).
Furthermore, claim 27 recites the limitation “the pixel defining portion” in the last line of the claim. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the via portion and the driving unit are connected through via connection” in lines 5-6. It is not clear what is meant by “via connection”. References FIG. 1 and 2, the via portion 410 connects to the S/D region of the transistor through metallizations beyond just vias.
Furthermore, claim 28 recites the limitation “the light-emitting function structure is located within the first opening”. It is not clear what is meant by “located in the first opening”, as the disclosure shows the light-emitting structure 320 is located in the second opening 820 defined by the pixel definition portions 810 (i.e. not in the first opening 710 defined by the isolation structure 700).
Further still, claim 28 uses the term “and/or” in line 16. The claim must define a single invention, and thus it is unclear what is being claimed, as certain limitations may or may not be present in describing the invention. Also, it is not clear which limitations are referenced using the term “and/or”. Is it only the clauses immediately above and below “and/or”? Is it all clauses following “and/or” being compared with only the clause immediately above “and/or”? This is unclear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Amending the claims to include limitations specifying that the isolation structure separates and isolates the second electrodes, in addition to addressing the objections and rejections above, would place the claims in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896