DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Claims 1 – 18 are pending and are under examination in this action.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Requirement for Necessary Information
3. The Examiner has become aware of documents that may be material to patentability but have not been included in any IDS submissions even though the Applicant has been aware of these references for a substantial amount of time.
37 CFR 1.56(a) requires that “[e]ach individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability”.
Specifically, Applicant has failed to disclose the existence of related applications: 18/085,618, 18/086,662, 18/156,410, 18/184,699, and 18/185,549. Additionally, Applicant has failed to disclose any prior art cited with regard to any of the above related applications. Each of these related applications may be material to the patentability of this application for double patenting purposes and thus constitute necessary information that must be submitted to the Office. Each of the references cited in each of these related applications may be material to the patentability of this application for prior art purposes and thus constitute necessary information that must be submitted to the Office.
4. Required Information: 37 CFR 1.105(a)(1)(viii) – In light of the above findings by the Examiner, Applicant is required to submit a list of every reference of which they are aware that may be material to the patentability of the claimed invention, as defined by 37 CFR 1.56(b). This requirement is being made in view of 37 CFR 1.56 and 1.105 in order to ensure that the most relevant prior art is fully considered.
Failure to provide a detailed list of all information that may be material to patentability of the claimed invention as defined by 37 CFR 1.56(b) will be considered non-responsive.
Accordingly, each piece of information referred to above is necessary material that is required to be submitted in order to properly proceed with the examination of this Application.
If Applicant is aware of any other prior art or related applications that may be material to the patentability of this application in any manner, they are required to inform the Office of these documents.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1 – 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,568,748 in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0048544).
For Example:
Claim 1 (App. 18/624,516)
Claim 1 (Patent 12,568,748)
1. A display device comprising:
a substrate;
an insulating layer disposed above the substrate;
a lower electrode disposed above the insulating layer; (lines 1 – 5)
1. A display device comprising:
a substrate;
an insulating layer disposed above the substrate;
a lower electrode disposed above the insulating layer (lines 1 – 4)
a rib, including a pixel aperture overlapping the lower electrode (lines 6 – 7)
a rib, formed of an insulating material, including an aperture overlapping the lower electrode (lines 6 – 7)
a partition disposed above the rib;
an upper electrode opposing the lower electrode;
an organic layer disposed between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, which emits light in response to a potential difference between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, (lines 9 – 14)
a partition disposed above the rib in the display area;
an upper electrode opposing the lower electrode and connected to the partition;
an organic layer disposed between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, contacting the lower electrode through the aperture, and emitting light in response to a potential difference between the lower electrode and the upper electrode; (lines 8 – 15)
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,568,748 fails to explicitly recite: the rib formed of an inorganic material.
However, it was well-known and conventional for an insulating material to be formed from an inorganic material.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,568,748 fails to explicitly recite: the pixel aperture overlapping a peripheral edge of the lower electrode; and wherein the peripheral edge of the lower electrode is located between the insulating layer and the partition in a thickness direction of the insulating layer.
However, Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0048544) teaches: the pixel aperture overlapping a peripheral edge of the lower electrode (FIG. 5; paragraph [0133]; non-emission are NEA [pixel aperture] overlaps a peripheral edge of first pixel [lower] electrode PE1); and
wherein the peripheral edge of the lower electrode is located between the insulating layer and the partition in a thickness direction of the insulating layer (FIG. 5; paragraphs [0123], [0165]; the peripheral edge of first pixel [lower] electrode PE1 is located between insulating layer 130 and partition wall PW in a thickness direction).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the recitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,568,748 in view of the known teachings of Choi. Specifically, it would have been obvious to arrange the “lower electrode” of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,568,748 to have peripheral edges that are in the “pixel aperture” and disposed between the insulating layer and the partition, as taught by Choi. Such a modification of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,568,748 merely provides a more specific electrode arrangement than that generically recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights