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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/600,486, filed on September 30, 2021.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, paragraph 1, line 2: After “2021,”, add “now U.S. Pat. No. 12,144,205, issued November 12, 2024,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4: Change “PDL” to “(PDL)”.
Claims 2-9 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 1.
Claim 10, line 5: Change “PDL” to “(PDL)”.
Claims 11-17 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Note: This Office Action has two types of double patenting rejections: statutory and nonstatutory.
Statutory double patenting rejections
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of prior U.S. Patent No. U.S. Pat. No. 12,144,205 [hereinafter “the ’205 patent”]. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Claim 2 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’205 patent, discloses:
(pending claim 1’s language): a display panel, comprising (claim 1, line 1): an array substrate comprising a planarization layer, wherein the planarization layer is provided with a groove (claim 1, lines 2-3); a pixel definition layer PDL arranged on the planarization layer and filling the groove, wherein the PDL is provided with a pixel opening (claim 1, lines 4-6); and an anode arranged between the planarization layer and the PDL, wherein an end of the anode is disposed in the groove, and a middle portion of the anode is exposed from the pixel opening (claim 1, lines 7-10); wherein the groove comprises a second groove body (claim 1, lines 11-12), wherein the end of the anode being disposed in the groove comprises one end of the anode being located in the second groove body (claim 1, lines 13-16); wherein the array substrate comprises a base, an active layer, a gate layer, and a source-drain layer stacked in sequence, the planarization layer is disposed on the source-drain layer, and the source-drain layer comprises a source and a drain (claim 1, lines 17-21); and the planarization layer is provided with a through hole, the through hole communicates with the second groove body, the source is partially exposed from the through hole, and the anode is in contact with the source via the through hole (claim 1, lines 22-26);
(pending claim 2’s language): wherein a gap is provided between the anode and a sidewall of the groove (claim 2, lines 1-2);
(pending claim 3’s language): wherein the groove comprises a first groove body and the second groove body spaced apart from each other (claim 1, lines 11-12); and wherein the end of the anode being disposed in the groove further comprises another end of the anode being located in the first groove body (claim 1, lines 13-16).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 10 of the ’205 patent. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 11, which depends from claim 10: Claim 10 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 9 of the ’205 patent discloses:
(pending claim 10’s language): a display apparatus, comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises (claim 9, lines 1-2): an array substrate comprising a planarization layer, wherein the planarization layer is provided with a groove (claim 9, lines 3-4); a pixel definition layer PDL arranged on the planarization layer and filling the groove, wherein the PDL being provided with a pixel opening (claim 9, lines 5-7); and an anode arranged between the planarization layer and the PDL, wherein an end of the anode is disposed in the groove, and a middle portion of the anode is exposed from the pixel opening (claim 9, lines 8-11); wherein the groove comprises a second groove body, wherein the end of the anode being disposed in the groove comprises one end of the anode being located in the second groove body (claim 9, lines 12-17); wherein the array substrate comprises a base, an active layer, a gate layer, and a source-drain layer stacked in sequence, the planarization layer is disposed on the source-drain layer, and the source-drain layer comprises a source and a drain (claim 9, lines 18-22); and the planarization layer is provided with a through hole, the through hole communicates with the second groove body, the source is partially exposed from the through hole, and the anode is in contact with the source via the through hole (claim 9, lines 23-27);
(pending claim 11’s language): wherein a gap is provided between the anode and a sidewall of the groove (claim 10, lines 1-3);
(pending claim 12’s language): wherein the groove comprises a first groove body and the second groove body spaced apart from each other; and wherein the end of the anode being disposed in the groove further comprises another end of the anode being located in the first groove body (claim 9, lines 12-17).
Nonstatutory double patenting rejections
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 of the ’205 patent discloses a display panel, comprising (claim 1, line 1): an array substrate comprising a planarization layer, wherein the planarization layer is provided with a groove (claim 1, lines 2-3); a pixel definition layer PDL arranged on the planarization layer and filling the groove, wherein the PDL is provided with a pixel opening (claim 1, lines 4-6); and an anode arranged between the planarization layer and the PDL, wherein an end of the anode is disposed in the groove, and a middle portion of the anode is exposed from the pixel opening (claim 1, lines 7-10); wherein the groove comprises a second groove body (claim 1, lines 11-12), wherein the end of the anode being disposed in the groove comprises one end of the anode being located in the second groove body (claim 1, lines 13-16); wherein the array substrate comprises a base, an active layer, a gate layer, and a source-drain layer stacked in sequence, the planarization layer is disposed on the source-drain layer, and the source-drain layer comprises a source and a drain (claim 1, lines 17-21); and the planarization layer is provided with a through hole, the through hole communicates with the second groove body, the source is partially exposed from the through hole, and the anode is in contact with the source via the through hole (claim 1, lines 22-26).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Claim 2 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’205 patent, discloses a gap is provided between the anode and a sidewall of the groove (claim 2, lines 1-2).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1: Claim 3 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’205 patent, discloses a transition layer arranged between the source and the anode, wherein the transition layer fills the through hole (claim 3, lines 1-4).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1: Claim 4 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’205 patent, discloses a height of the groove ranges from 0.5 μm to 1 μm, and the height is a distance from a bottom wall of the groove to an opening end of the groove (claim 4, lines 1-4).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Claim 5 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’205 patent, discloses a distance between one side of the PDL that faces away from the planarization layer and a bottom wall of the groove ranges from 0.6 μm to 7 μm (claim 5, lines 1-4).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 6 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’205 patent, discloses wherein the PDL comprises (claim 6, lines 1-2): a plurality of first sub-pixel definition layers, wherein orthographic projections of the plurality of first sub-pixel definition layers on the array substrate are arranged in a first direction (claim 6, lines 3-5); and a plurality of second sub-pixel definition layers, wherein orthographic projections of the plurality of second sub-pixel definition layers on the array substrate are arranged in a second direction, a height of the second sub-pixel definition layer is greater than a height of the first sub-pixel definition layer, and the first direction and the second direction intersect (claim 6, lines 6-11).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 7 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 8 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’205 patent, discloses a luminescent material of a same color is arranged between two adjacent second sub-pixel definition layers, and the luminescent material covers the first sub-pixel definition layer disposed between the two adjacent second sub-pixel definition layers (claim 7, lines 1-5).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1: Claim 8 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 1 of the ’205 patent, discloses the anode comprises a first transparent electrode, a metal electrode, and a second transparent electrode stacked in sequence (claim 8, lines 1-4).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 9 of the ’205 patent discloses a display apparatus, comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises (claim 9, lines 1-2): an array substrate comprising a planarization layer, wherein the planarization layer is provided with a groove (claim 9, lines 3-4); a pixel definition layer PDL arranged on the planarization layer and filling the groove, wherein the PDL being provided with a pixel opening (claim 9, lines 5-7); and an anode arranged between the planarization layer and the PDL, wherein an end of the anode is disposed in the groove, and a middle portion of the anode is exposed from the pixel opening (claim 9, lines 8-11); wherein the groove comprises a second groove body, wherein the end of the anode being disposed in the groove comprises one end of the anode being located in the second groove body (claim 9, lines 12-17); wherein the array substrate comprises a base, an active layer, a gate layer, and a source-drain layer stacked in sequence, the planarization layer is disposed on the source-drain layer, and the source-drain layer comprises a source and a drain (claim 9, lines 18-22); and the planarization layer is provided with a through hole, the through hole communicates with the second groove body, the source is partially exposed from the through hole, and the anode is in contact with the source via the through hole (claim 9, lines 23-27).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 10: Claim 10 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 9 of the ’205 patent, discloses a gap is provided between the anode and a sidewall of the groove (claim 10, lines 1-3).
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 10: Claim 11 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 9 of the ’205 patent, discloses a transition layer arranged between the source and the anode, wherein the transition layer fills the through hole (claim 11, lines 1-4).
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 10: Claim 12 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 9 of the ’205 patent, discloses a height of the groove ranges from 0.5 μm to 1 μm, and the height is a distance from a bottom wall of the groove to an opening end of the groove (claim 12, lines 1-4).
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 10: Claim 13 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 9 of the ’205 patent, discloses wherein the PDL comprises (claim 13, lines 1-2): a plurality of first sub-pixel definition layers, wherein orthographic projections of the plurality of first sub-pixel definition layers on the array substrate are arranged in a first direction (claim 13, lines 3-5); and a plurality of second sub-pixel definition layers, wherein orthographic projections of the plurality of second sub-pixel definition layers on the array substrate are arranged in a second direction, a height of the second sub-pixel definition layer is greater than a height of the first sub-pixel definition layer, and the first direction and the second direction intersect (claim 13, lines 6-11).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 10: Claim 14 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 13 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 9 of the ’205 patent, discloses a luminescent material of a same color is arranged between two adjacent second sub-pixel definition layers, and the luminescent material covers the first sub-pixel definition layer disposed between the two adjacent second sub-pixel definition layers (claim 14, lines 1-5).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of the ’205 patent.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 10: Claim 15 of the ’205 patent, which depends from claim 9 of the ’205 patent, discloses the anode comprises a first transparent electrode, a metal electrode, and a second transparent electrode stacked in sequence (claim 15, lines 1-4).
Remarks
During a review of the ’205 patent, the Office noted a minor error in claim 3, line 3, in that “drain source” should be “source”. Compare with claim 11 of the same patent. The Office brings the matter to applicants’ attention in case applicants would like to seek a correction—applicants had canceled “drain” from the claim in their June 4, 2024 amendment in U.S. App. No. 17/600,486, the pending application’s parent application, which issued as the ’205 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
