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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6/29/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “a display device comprising: a partition wall disposed on a base layer; and a light emitting unit disposed adjacent to the partition wall, wherein the partition wall comprises: a first partition wall layer; a second partition wall layer disposed on the first partition wall layer; a first protruding layer disposed between the first partition wall layer and the second partition wall layer; and a second protruding layer disposed on the second partition wall layer, the first protruding layer protrudes over the first partition wall layer, and the second protruding layer protrudes over the second partition wall layer, wherein the first partition wall layer has a thickness in a thickness direction of the display device that is greater than a thickness of each of the first protruding layer and the second protruding layer,” does not reasonably provide enablement for “the first partition wall layer overlaps the light emitting unit in a lateral direction orthogonal to the thickness direction and the first protruding layer does not overlap the light emitting unit in the lateral direction.” The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Specifically, it appears to examiner that it would be impossible for the protruding layer to not overlap the light emitting unit, if the first partition layer overlapped the light emitting unit, because the protruding layer protrudes out past the edge of the first partition layer in a lateral direction. Furthermore, each of applicant’s figures show said configuration. Therefore, it is unclear to examiner how the amended claims could be drawn to a device within the scope of applicant’s invention.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamana, US 6249084.
Regarding claim 21, Yamana teaches (at least in Figure 9) an electronic device (abstract) comprising: a partition wall (10) disposed on a base layer (1); and a light emitting unit (2,6,7) disposed adjacent to the partition wall, wherein the partition wall comprises: a first partition wall layer (lower layer 10b); a second partition wall layer (upper layer 10b) disposed on the first partition wall layer; a first protruding layer (middle layer 10a) disposed between the first partition wall layer and the second partition wall layer; and a second protruding layer (upper layer 10a) disposed on the second partition wall layer, the first protruding layer protrudes over the first partition wall layer (see Figure 9), the second protruding layer protrudes over the second partition wall layer (id), and the light emitting unit is not in contact with a side surface of the second partition wall layer (2/6/7 not in contact with side surface of upper layer 10b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukuda et al., US 2023/0320172 teaches a display having partition walls and protruding walls, but fails to teach the partition walls are thicker than the protruding walls.
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 MARY-ELLEN BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday; 7:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
MARY ELLEN BOWMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/MARY ELLEN BOWMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights