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 Acknowledged
Applicant’s election of Species 1 shown in Figs. 3-7 and Claims 1-14 in the response (Reply) to Restriction Requirement filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 15-29 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-14 are examined on merits herein.
In view of the choice made, the current Office Action, does not examine Claims 15-29 for any issues related to 35 U.S.C. paragraphs 102, 103, or 112, as well as for double patenting.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0068 and 0116 of the published application identify titanium dioxide as a metal, which is incorrect – titanium dioxide may be identified as a metal oxide, but not as a metal.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1: Claim 1 has limitations: “the second area of the second electrode comprises protruding portions extending to at least one of areas between the plurality of signal wires, and wherein one of the protruding portions is electrically connected to the contact electrode”. The recitation of the second electrode protruding portions is unclear for the chosen Species 1 shown in Figs. 3-7 (where Figs. 1-2 are common for all species): Second electrode 170 has protruding portions (“PP”, as it is identified by the specification) for Species 2 and 3 shown in Figs. 8-9 and 11-12, accordingly, where a protruding portion PP is disposed in a trench, on a bottom and two side walls of the trench, while the second electrode 170 of Species 1 has a flat second portion: see paragraphs 0099-0101 of the published application explaining “flat” and “protruding portions” of the second electrode.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, Claim 1 was interpreted in accordance with the specification, e.g., the above-cited limitations of Claim 1 were omitted from consideration.
In re Claim 9: Claim 9 recites: “the contact electrode is disposed between the plurality of signal wires”. The recitation is unclear, since leads to a question: Does the contact electrode comprise multiple parts with each part disposed between adjacent signal lines?
Since the specification (including figures) of the application does not respond to the question positively, appropriate correction is required to clarify a claim language.
For this Office Action, based on Fig. 3, the cited limitation was interpreted as: “the contact electrode is disposed between two adjacent signal lines, with other signal lines disposed along the adjacent signal lines”.
In re Claim 10: Claim 10 recites: “a plurality of divided second electrodes are electrically connected to the contact electrode, respectively”. The recitation is unclear, since contradicts to the specification of the application, not teaching that a plurality of (divided) second electrodes are connected to a same contact electrode (e.g., “the contact electrode”), but teaching (see at least Fig. 2 and its description in the specification) that the display has multiple contact electrodes 163, each disposed within a corresponding pixel (or in a pixel row).
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022], inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation of Claim 10 was interpreted as: “each of a plurality of divided second electrodes is electrically connected to a corresponding contact electrode”.
In re Claims 2-8 and 11-14: Claims 2-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 1.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-4 and 7-14 of this application (as interpreted) are patentably indistinct from Claims 1-12 of Application No. 18/763,630 (published as US 2025/0023003), as is explained in details below. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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.
Table of Comparison below provides correlations between examined claims of the current application and claims of 18/763,630, where affected claims of the current application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. Although not all of claims at issue are identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Table of Comparison
Claims of the current application (as interpreted)
Corresponding Claims of 18/763,630
Comments on Patentably
Non-distinguished Differences
1
1
Differences in recitations: “first (second) region” versus: “first (second) area”
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
5
Claim 5 has additional limitations
8
6
Claim 6 has additional limitations
9
7
10
8
Claim 10 recites: “second electrode is divided in plural”, while Claim 8 recites: “a plurality of second electrodes, including the second electrode”, but there are no structural differences between “divided second electrode” and “a plurality of second electrodes”.
11
9
12
10
13
11
14
12
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 1-4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0125691) in view of Heo (US 2017/0317154).
In re Claim 1, Yang teaches a display apparatus (Abstract) comprising (Figs. 1, 7, and Annotated Fig. 7):
Annotated Fig. 7
PNG
media_image1.png
341
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of first electrodes 311, 312, 313 (paragraph 0064) disposed on a substrate 100 (paragraph 0059);
a plurality of light-emitting elements (paragraphs 0084-0086) disposed on the plurality of first electrodes;
a first optical layer 150 (paragraphs 0064, 0090) disposed between the plurality of light-emitting elements;
a second electrode 305 (paragraph 0084) disposed on the plurality of light-emitting elements; and
a plurality of signal wires DL, SL (Fig. 1, paragraph 0056) electrically connected to the plurality of first electrodes (since first electrodes are elements of a pixel PX), wherein
the second electrode 305 comprises a first area – 1A (as in Annotated Fig. 7) disposed on the plurality of light-emitting elements and a second area 2A (as in Annotated Fig. 7) extending outward from the first optical layer 150, wherein (the following limitations are considered in view of the claim interpretation):
the second area of the second electrode comprises protruding portions extending to at least one of areas between the plurality of signal wires, and wherein
one of the protruding portions is electrically connected to the contact electrode.
Yang does not teach a contact electrode disposed on the substrate, wherein the contact electrode is electrically connected to the second area of the second electrode.
Heo teaches (paragraph 0091) a contact electrode 130 conductively connected to a second area of a second electrode 122 (paragraph 0095).
Yang and Heo teach analogous arts directed to display comprised light emitting elements disposed between top (second) and bottom (first) electrodes, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Yang device in view of the Heo device, since they are from a same field of endeavor, and Heo created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yang display by creating a contact electrode electrically connected to the second area of the second electrode (per Heo), wherein such modification allows preventing a gradual worsening in a voltage drop of the second electrode from an edge to a center (Heo, paragraph 0091).
In re Claim 2, Yang/Heo teaches the display apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above and further comprising (Yang, Annotated Fig. 7): a second optical layer 420 (paragraph 0092) covering the second area 2A of the second electrode 305.
In re Claim 3, Yang/Heo teaches the display apparatus of Claim 2 as cited above, wherein (Fig. 7 of Yang and paragraphs below) the first optical layer 150 is made from HMDSO (paragraph 0090) and the second optical layer 420 is made from epoxy-based resin (paragraph 0093), as such, the first and second optical layers are made from different materials.
In re Claim 4, Yang/Heo teaches the display apparatus of Claim 3 as cited above, including the first optical layer, but does not teach that the first optical layer comprises light scattering particles.
However, Yang teaches (Fig. 7) another optical layer 610 that comprises light scattering particles (paragraphs 0098-0099).
Since the first optical layer and the another optical layer are created from organic materials (being resins, paragraphs 0090, 0098), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to substitute the taught organic material of the first optical layer with the material of the another optical layer comprising scattering particles, at least when it is desirable to reduce a number of various organic materials used in the display apparatus. In addition, “It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice”, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In re Claim 7, Yang/Heo teaches the display apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above and further comprising (Yang, Fig. 7 and paragraph): a plurality of bank patterns 150 disposed between the substrate 100 and the plurality of first electrodes 311, 312, 313.
In re Claim 9, Yang/Heo teaches the display apparatus of Claim 7 as cited above, including the contact electrode explicitly taught by Heo.
Heo further teaches (Fig. 2) that the contact electrode 130 (with its parts 131 and 132) is disposed between the plurality of signal wires SL and DL.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Heo in view of Guo et al. (US 2007/0146248).
In re Claim 10, Yang/Heo teaches the display apparatus of Claim 2 as cited above, including the second electrode (being a cathode electrode) electrically connected to the contact electrode (per Heo), but does not teach that the second electrode is divided in plural to be disposed in each pixel row, and a plurality of divided second electrodes are electrically connected to the contact electrode, respectively (e.g., “each of a plurality of divided second electrodes is electrically connected to a corresponding contact electrode”, in accordance with the claim interpretation).
However, Heo teaches (Fig. 2, paragraph 0092) that the contact electrode 130 may be created only of wires 131 and teaches a plurality of contact electrodes 131 each disposed in a direction of a corresponding pixel row.
Guo teaches (Fig. 6, paragraph 0039) that a cathode electrode is divided in a plurality of electrodes, each belonging to one pixel row, and each cathode electrode of a corresponding pixel row is coupled to a contact electrode (e.g., contact terminal).
Yang/Heo and Guo teach analogous arts directed to active matrix displays, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Yang/Heo device in view of the Guo device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Guo device is successfully functioning.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yang/Heo device by dividing the second electrode in a plural to be disposed in each pixel row (per Guo) and connected to a corresponding contact electrode (each disposed within a corresponding pixel row, per Heo), wherein it is desirable at least to save a material for the second electrode.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Heo in view of Sizov et al. (US 2023/0018406).
In re Claim 13, Yang/Heo teaches the display apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above, but does not teach that the plurality of light-emitting elements are inorganic light-emitting diodes (e.g. “LED”) – they both teach organic light-emitting diodes - OLEDs.
Sizov teaches (paragraph 0003) that OLEDs and LEDs are used in displays interchangeably.
Yang/Heo and Sizov teach analogous arts directed to display apparatus, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Yang/Heo device in view of the Sizov teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Sizov referred to a practice commonly used in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yang/Heo device of Claim 1 by substituting its OLEDs with LEDs, when desirable. See MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2143 on a Conclusion of Obviousness: KSR Rational (B): Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 11, and 12 contain allowable subject matter, while Claim 6 depends on Claim 5, and Claim 14 depends on Claim 12.
Reason for Identification of Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claim 5: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation as: “a top surface of the second optical layer and a top surface of the first area of the second electrode are coplanar”, in combination with all limitations of Claims 1 and 2 (as interpreted), on which Claim 5 depends.
Re Claim 8: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 8 as: “the plurality of signal wires is extending between the plurality of bank patterns”, in combination with all limitations of Claims 1 and 7, on which Claim 8 depends.
Re Claim 11: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of the claim as: “a third area extending to a side of the first optical layer”, in combination with other limitations of Claim 11 and in combination with all limitations of Claim 1, on which Claim 11 depends.
Re Claim 12: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 12 as: “the plurality of connection wires is electrically connected to... the contact electrode”, in combination with other limitations of Claim 12 and in combination with all limitations of Claim 1, on which Claim 12 depends.
The prior arts of record, in addition to the prior arts cited by the current Office Action above, also include: Wu et al. (US 2018/0137817, explicitly teaching a limitation of Claim 14), AN et al. (US 2022/0376144, teaching some limitations of Claim 12), Pan (US 10,325,894, teaching a contact electrode connected to a second electrode), as well as non-cited others.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible). Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 08/06/26
Prosecution Insights