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 .
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.
1. Claims 1, 3-6, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,957. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3-6, and 10 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-4 in that claims 1-4 of the patent contain all the limitations of claims 1, 3-6, and 10 of the instant application. Claims 1, 3-6, and 10 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim Chart:
Patent No. 11,393,957 Current Application
1 & 3 1
4 2
6 3
5 4
1 10
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
2. Claims 2, 7-9, and 11-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
3. The prior art teaches the claimed matter in the rejections above, but is silent with respect to the above teachings in combination with the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the light conversion unit comprises a plurality of quantum dot particles; the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a pore size of one of the pores of the porous structure is 0.05 μm to 10 μm; the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a porosity of the porous structure is 20% to 80%; the method of claim 10, further disposing a color filter unit on the first substrate before forming the isolating layer; the method of claim 10, further disposing a low refractive index layer on the first substrate before forming the isolating layer; the method of claim 10, further disposing a low refractive index layer on the first substrate after forming the isolating layer; the method of claim 10, wherein the step of forming the porous structure comprises: coating a preposed material on the first substrate; removing the preposed material exceeding a top surface of the isolating layer; and drying the preposed material to form a porous structure; the method of claim 14, further placing the first substrate with the preposed material in a replacement solvent before the step of drying the preposed material; and/or the method of claim 10, wherein the light conversion materials are filled into the pores through an inkjet method or a dripping method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR A MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1918. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-6:30 EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached on 571-270-7877. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/VICTOR A MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 10/6/26
Prosecution Insights