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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 06/30/2026, in which claim 1 was cancelled, has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on 09/24/2024 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/24/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1, Fig. 3 in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the species could be commonly examined without undue burden, as at least some of the species share common technical features that could be concurrently examined”. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the restriction requirement, there is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least one or more of the following reason(s) apply:
• the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and/or
• the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
• the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and/or
• non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are relevant to one species or grouping of patentably indistinct species that are not relevant to the other species or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species; and/or
• prior art applied to one species or grouping of patentably indistinct species that cannot be applied to the other species or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species.
Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that “the species could be commonly examined without undue burden, as at least some of the species share common technical features that could be concurrently examined.” Particularly, Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the species require a different field of search such as employing different search strategies or search queries. Applicant has not provided any prior art that can be applied to some of the species share common technical features. If Applicant is aware of such a prior art, Applicant has a duty to disclose to the Office under 37 C.F.R. 156.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant is reminded that the restriction requirement clearly stated “Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.”
Applicant has failed to comply with the above requirement by including claims 5-16 that do not read on elected species 1 of Fig. 3.
Claim 5 requires “the conductive portion is composed of a conductive material layer provided between the light reflecting film and the insulating layer” which directs to nonelected species 4 of Fig. 17 and nonelected species 7 of Fig. 31 while in elected invention of Fig. 3 the conductive portion [32] is not provided between the light reflecting film [31] and the insulating layer [27].
Claim 6 requires “the transparent electrode is formed on the insulating film provided on the light reflecting film”, however, in Fig. 3, there is no insulating film provided on the light reflecting film [31] and the transparent electrode [33] is formed directly on the light reflecting film [31].
Claims 7-11 requires “a conductive portion that is conductive with the transparent electrode is provided on an upper surface of the light reflecting film”, however, in Fig. 3, a conductive portion [32] that is conductive with the transparent electrode is not provided on an upper surface of the light reflecting film [31].
Claims 12-16 require “the light reflecting film is composed of an aluminum-based metal material doped with at least nickel” which directs to nonelected species 10-species 13 shown in Fig. 45, 48, 50 and 55 and disclosed in paragraph [0268] while elected species of Fig. 3, paragraph [0163] requires the light reflecting film is composed of undoped aluminum.
In addition to the above limitation of claim 12, claim 15 further requires “the transparent electrode is formed on the insulating film provided on the light reflecting film” which directs to nonelected species 11 of Fig. 48.
In addition to the above limitation of claim 12, claim 16 further requires “the first electrodes have a damascene structure selectively embedded in the insulating layer in a predetermined pattern” which directs to nonelected species 12 and 13 of Fig. 50 and Fig. 55.
Therefore, Applicant’s response is considered incomplete and nonresponsive.
For advance prosecution, Notice of Non-Responsive will not be mailed out.
Claims 5-16 are 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.
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 2-4 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “the first electrode includes a conductive light reflecting film formed on an insulating layer provided on the substrate, and a transparent electrode formed on the light reflecting film; vias that are conductive with the light reflecting films formed in portions of the insulating layer at locations under the light reflecting films, the vias being configured to conduct a voltage to the first electrodes through the vias, wherein the insulating layer forms a partition wall between the first electrodes, and the insulating layer covers an upper surface of the transparent electrode”. It is unclear how the insulating layer forms a partition wall between the first electrodes, covers an upper surface of the transparent electrode when the first electrode including the transparent electrode and the light reflecting film is formed on the insulating layer. As shown in Fig. 3, the first electrode includes a conductive light reflecting film [31] and the light reflecting film 31] formed on an insulating layer [27]. However, the insulating layer [27] does not form a partition wall between the first electrodes, and does not cover upper surface of the transparent electrode 33. An insulating film [40], that formed on the insulating layer [27], forms a partition wall between the first electrodes and covers upper surface of the transparent electrode 33.
For the purpose of this Action, the limitation of “the insulating layer forms a partition wall between the first electrodes, and the insulating layer covers an upper surface of the transparent electrode” of claim 2 will be interpreted and examined as --an insulating film forms a partition wall between the first electrodes, and the insulating film covers an upper surface of the transparent electrode--.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11997863 in view of Park et al. (US Pub. 20170148860)
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11997863 teach every features of claim 2 of the instant application except the limitations “an insulating film forms a partition wall between the first electrodes, and the insulating film covers an upper surface of the transparent electrode”; claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11997863 teach every features of claims 3-4 of the instant application except the limitations “an insulating film forms a partition wall between the first electrodes, and the insulating film covers an upper surface of the transparent electrode”.
Park et al. discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 13
an insulating film [310] forms a partition wall between the first electrodes [290 and 380][Fig. 2] or [295 and 380] [Fig. 13], and
the insulating film [310] covers an upper surface of the transparent electrode [383].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Park et al. into the method of the U.S. Patent No. 11997863 to include an insulating film forms a partition wall between the first electrodes, and the insulating film covers an upper surface of the transparent electrode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the U.S. Patent No. 11997863 in the above manner for the purpose of providing pixel defining layer [paragraph [0060], [0099] of Park et al.].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated over Park et al. (US Pub. 20170148860).
Regarding claim 2, Park et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 13, a display device comprising:
pixels [10] arranged in a two-dimensional matrix, each pixel [10] including a first electrode [290], an organic layer [330] and a second electrode [340] on a substrate [110], wherein the first electrode [290 and 380][Fig. 2] or [295 and 380] [Fig. 13] includes a conductive light reflecting films [292][Fig.2] or [295][Fig. 13] formed on an insulating layer [270] provided on the substrate [110], and a transparent electrode [383] formed on the conductive light reflecting film [292][Fig.2] or [295][Fig. 13];
vias that are conductive with the light reflecting films [292][Fig.2] or [295][Fig. 13] formed in portions of the insulating layer [270] at locations under the light reflecting films [292][Fig.2] or [295][Fig. 13], the vias being configured to conduct a voltage to the first electrodes [290 and 380][Fig. 2] or [295 and 380] [Fig. 13] through the vias,
an insulating film [310] forms a partition wall between the first electrodes [290 and 380][Fig. 2] or [295 and 380] [Fig. 13], and
the insulating film [310] covers an upper surface of the transparent electrode [383].
Regarding claims 3-4, Park et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0041]
wherein a conductive portion [portion of 381 and 382] that is conductive with the transparent electrode [383] is provided on a side wall surface side of the light reflecting film [292][Fig.2] or [295][Fig. 13];
wherein the conductive portion [portion of 381 and 382] is provided so as to cover at least a part of the side wall surface of the light reflecting film [292][Fig.2] or [295][Fig. 13].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights