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 .
Response to Arguments
The examiner disagrees that the new subject matter of claims 11 and 24 are supported by the present disclosure. See the new matter rejection below.
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 11-19, 21, and 23-31 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.
Claims 11 and 24 recite that “the plurality of non-pixel areas are opaque regions through which light is not transmitted.” This is not described by the present application. The applicant states on page 12 that “support for the above-underlined amendment to claim 11 and the similar amendment to claim 24 is found throughout the application as filed. For example, as can be seen at least in Figure 8 of the present application (reproduced below), which illustrates non-limiting aspects of amended claims 11 and 24, the organic emission layers OL1/0L2/0L3 extend onto and over the pixel defining layer PDL but the electrodes E1/E2 do not, such that the portions of the organic emission layers OL1/0L2/0L3 on the pixel defining layer PDL do not emit light and do not allow light to be transmitted therethrough. See, e.g., Present Application, paras. [0088], [0092], and [0139] (describing the portions of the organic emission layers OL1/0L2/0L3 spaced from the electrode E1/E2 ‘do not emit light’).” (It appears to the examiner that the paragraph citations are in error, and should be [0087], [0091], and [0137].) See e.g. [0087]: “Even though the second chamfer CM2 of the second organic emission layer OL2 is overlapped with the first chamfer CM1 of the first organic emission layer OL1, since the first electrode E1 or the second electrode E2 is not positioned at the top portion of the pixel defining layer PDL, the first chamfer CM1 of the first organic emission layer OL1 and the second chamfer CM2 of the second organic emission layer OL2 which are the overlapped portions do not emit light.” This is simply a statement that light is not emitted here, as there must be an overlap of both electrodes and the light emitting layer in order to emit light. The applicant’s statement that “the organic emission layers OL1/0L2/0L3 extend onto and over the pixel defining layer PDL but the electrodes E1/E2 do not, such that the portions of the organic emission layers OL1/0L2/0L3 on the pixel defining layer PDL do not emit light and do not allow light to be transmitted therethrough” (emphasis added) is not supported by the written specification, the figures, or the applicant’s arguments.
An absence of emitted light is not the same thing as being opaque. A window does not emit light and is also not opaque. The applicant’s stated support for this subject matter does not support it, and the examiner can not find elsewhere in the specification where this feature is described.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 22, 32, and 33 are allowed.
With respect to claims 20 and 32, the examiner did not find a display in which there where convex portions in both of the claimed perpendicular directions in a device with all the features of these claims, nor did the examiner find a reason this would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 22, the examiner did not find in the prior art the claimed convex portions from adjacent pixels overlapping each other as claimed in light of the overall claimed device.
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 PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights