DETAILED ACTION
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 1-4 and 8-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the amended limitation “an auxiliary lower electrode…having a same height as a height of the pixel-defining layer” would raise a new matter issue since the specification of the instant application does not fully and clearly disclose such limitation. Specifically, referring to Fig. 2, a display device DD shows an auxiliary pixel electrode SPE having a height greater than a height of a pixel-defining layer PDL in a third direction DR3 in order to electrically connect to an auxiliary transistor positioned below the auxiliary pixel electrode SPE (See Fig. 2). As such, Fig. 2 does not provide support for the limitation “an auxiliary lower electrode…having a same height as a height of the pixel-defining layer”. Fig. 3 does not provide support for the limitation either since Fig. 3 only shows an X-Y portion of the display device DD having a portion of the auxiliary pixel electrode SPE (See Figs. 2-3). Furthermore, assuming, arguendo, that Applicant relies on Fig. 3 for support, the X-Y portion of the display device DD in Fig. 3 appears show that the portion of the auxiliary pixel electrode SPE having a height structurally different from a height of a first portion PDL1 of the pixel-defining layer PDL and a second portion PDL2 of the pixel-defining layer PDL in the third direction DR3 (See Fig. 3). Claims 2-4 and 8-14, which depend from claim 1, are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 15-20 are allowable over the cited prior arts Chung et al. (US 2020/0258947 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2018/0130857 A1).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a display device in claim 5, particularly in combination with the limitation the auxiliary lower electrode filling the cutout portion, connected to the auxiliary transistor, having a same height as the cutout portion, and comprising an upper surface at a same plane as an upper surface of the second portion of the pixel-defining layer; and a method of manufacturing a display device in claim 15, particularly in combination with method steps of forming a first preliminary pixel-defining layer above the lower electrode; forming an auxiliary lower electrode overlapping the auxiliary pixel area above the first preliminary pixel-defining layer; forming a second preliminary pixel-defining layer above the first preliminary pixel-defining layer and the auxiliary lower electrode; removing a portion of the second preliminary pixel-defining layer; and removing a portion of the first preliminary pixel-defining layer overlapping the main pixel area, and a portion of the second preliminary pixel-defining layer overlapping the main pixel area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth above in this Office Action.
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 DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights