DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 2, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on January 30, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2004-0014132 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Accordingly, Applicant may electronically file form PTO/SB/38, a Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Applications(s), in order to request for the USPTO to retrieve the priority document(s).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In addition, limitation term “the (1-1)th power voltage” recited in eleventh line of the claim, renders the clam indefinite, because the meaning of the coined term “the (1-1)th power voltage” is not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claims, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “the (1-1)th power voltage” actually is. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 1 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In addition, limitation term “(1-2)th power voltage” recited in fifth and twelfth lines of the claim, renders the clam indefinite, because the meaning of the coined term “ (1-2)th power voltage” is not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claims, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “the (1-2)th power voltage” actually is. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 6 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In addition, limitation term “(1-2)th power voltage” recited in third line of the claim, renders the clam indefinite, because the meaning of the coined term “ (1-2)th power voltage” is not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claims, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “the (1-2)th power voltage” actually is.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In addition, limitation term “the (1-1)th power voltage” recited in eleventh line of the claim, renders the clam indefinite, because the meaning of the coined term “the (1-1)th power voltage” is not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claims, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “the (1-1)th power voltage” actually is. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 17 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
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 1 and 17 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In particular, claims 1 and 17 recite limitation terms “the emission signal”, “the first initialization gate signal”, “the (1-1)th power voltage”, and “the first initialization voltage” in eleventh thru twelfth lines of the claims, but the limitation terms are unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation terms in the claims given that the claims use the limitations terms for a first time without previously reciting the limitation terms in claims 1 and 17, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the limitation terms are referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issues. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claims 1 or 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on same above reasoning.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph and objection(s) indicated above, because for each of the claims the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed. For example, in regard to claim 9 the prior art of record at least does not expressly teach concept of wherein at least one of the first voltage and the second voltage is one of a sweep voltage, an emission signal, a first initialization gate signal, a power voltage, and a first initialization voltage. In addition, claims 2-4 and 6-8, 11-16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph and objection(s) indicated above because for each of claims 2-4 and 6-8, 11-16, and 18-20, at least in light of their dependency, the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed. Still in addition, claim 9 is allowable, because the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all elements as presently claimed. For example, in regard to claim 9 the prior art of record at least does not expressly teach concept of wherein the first shared line and the second shared line are formed as a same conductive layer, the same conductive layer includes: a first conductive pattern forming the first shared line, the first conductive pattern extending in a first direction; and a second conductive pattern forming the second shared line, the second conductive pattern extending in the first direction, and a contact hole connected to the first conductive pattern and a contact hole connected to the second conductive pattern are arranged in the first direction. Moreover, claim 10 is allowable because, at least in light of its dependency, the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3128. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights