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
Claims 11-15 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/14/2025.
Claims 6-10 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/14/2025.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-5 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “the auxiliary electrodes comprise conductive portions and covering portions located on one sides of the conductive portions”. The limitation “one sides” is ambiguous regarding whether the number of sides is singular or plural. The Examiner suggests --the auxiliary electrodes comprise conductive portions and covering portions each located on one side[[s]] of each of the conductive portions--.
Independent claim 1 recites “the auxiliary electrodes are arranged close to a corresponding at least one peripheral edge of the plurality of peripheral edges”. The limitation “a corresponding at least one” is ambiguous regarding whether corresponding peripheral edges are singular or plural. The Examiner suggests --the auxiliary electrodes are arranged close to [[a corresponding]] at least one corresponding peripheral edge of the plurality of peripheral edges--.
Independent claim 1 recites “a ratio between lengths of the auxiliary electrodes parallel to the direction where the long edge or the short edge is located and lengths of maximum outer contour diameters of the sub-pixels”. It is noted by the Examiner that a single ratio is recited, though multiple lengths seem to belong in the numerator and multiple lengths seem to belong in the denominator. It is unclear how multiple lengths are to be combined within the numerator of a single ratio, and it is unclear how multiple lengths are to be combined within the denominator of a single ratio. Alternatively, it is unclear whether this limitation is drawn to a single ratio, or to multiple ratios.
Regarding independent claim 1: The meaning of “diameters” is unclear in the context of a rectangular sub-pixel.
Claim 3 recites “the first transfer portions and the second transfer portions are arranged respectively close to different edges”. This is misdescriptive. No such feature appears in any drawing readable upon independent claim 1, from which elected claim 3 depends. Furthermore, it is unclear whether one first transfer portion must be arranged relatively close to a different edge from an edge where another first transfer portion is arranged, or whether one first transfer portion must be arranged relatively close to a different edge from an edge where one second transfer portion is arranged.
Other pending claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Regarding claims 1-5: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
It is noted by the Examiner that each and every limitation of claim 4 is recited in its parent claim, independent claim 1. Thus, claim 1 and claim 4 are identical in scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 and 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The obviousness rejection has been overcome by filing a certified translation of Applicant’s foreign priority document; however, all elected claims are indefinite.
On page 11 of the remarks filed 09/05/2025, Applicant argues “the content of Claim 3 is clear in view of the content of Fig. 5c”. The Examiner has considered this argument thoroughly and notes that elected Species A is drawn to Figs. 3-4, rather than to Fig. 5c. Furthermore, amended claim 1 (from which claim 3 depends) does not appear to be readable upon Fig. 5c. See independent claim 1, which recites “another part of each of the auxiliary electrodes”, a feature inconsistent with the appearance of Fig. 5c.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
01/30/2026