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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.: 12,196,988. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application independent claims a broader display substrate than the one claimed in claims 1 and 3 of the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a display substrate comprising a plurality of repeat units on a base substrate, wherein each of the plurality of repeat units comprises one first color sub-pixel, two second color sub-pixels and one third color sub-pixel, the one first-color sub-pixel and the one third-color sub-pixel are arranged in a first direction, the two second-color sub-pixels are arranged in a second direction, the plurality of repeat units are arranged in the first direction to form a plurality of repeat unit groups, the plurality of repeat unit groups are arranged in the second direction, and adjacent repeat unit groups are staggered from each other in the first direction, wherein each sub-pixel comprises a light-emitting layer; in three sub-pixels of different colors which are adjacent to each other, light-emitting layers of at least two sub-pixels are connected with each other, and a spacing is disposed between at least part of the light-emitting layers of two sub-pixels which are adjacent to each other and located in different repeat unit groups; connecting lines of centers of orthographic projections of light-emitting regions of four second-color sub-pixels on the base substrate form a first trapezoid, and connecting lines of centers of orthographic projections of light-emitting regions of two first-color sub-pixels and two third-color sub-pixels on the base substrate form a second trapezoid, in combination with the remaining features recited in the claim.
The prior art of Lee (US 2013/0234917 A1) discloses a plurality of repeat units comprising first, second, and third color sub-pixels comprising light-emitting layers that are arranged as repeat unit groups which are staggered and have a spacing in between them (Lee, Figure 1, first sub-pixel R, second sub-pixel G, third sub-pixel B; Paragraph 0038). However, Lee fails to disclose that light-emitting layers of adjacent sub-pixels of two different colors in the first direction are connected with each other. Lee also fails to particularly disclose that there are two second sub-pixels, where connecting lines of centers of orthographic projections of light-emitting regions of four second-color sub-pixels on the base substrate form a trapezoid. The prior art of Joe (US 2020/0328259 A1) discloses light-emitting layers of adjacent sub-pixels of two different colors in the first direction are connected with each other (Joe, Figure 5, adjacent sub-pixels 520a and 521b are connected). However, Joe fails to disclose the particular arrangement of a first color sub-pixel, two second color sub-pixels, and a third color sub-pixel forming a repeat unit group, where the repeat unit groups are staggered in a first direction and four second-color sub-pixels form a first trapezoid shape. The prior art of Sato (US 2016/0126295 A1) also discloses different color sub-pixels, where some are connected to one another and some are spaced apart from one another (Sato, Figure 3). However, Sato also fails to disclose two second color sub-pixels, and a specific connection between the different sub-pixel colors. The prior art of Matsueda (US 2019/0131589 A1) discloses staggered repeat unit groups (Matsueda, Figure 4) but fails to disclose connected and spaced light-emitting layers following a particular layout. Further, there is no proper motivation to combine the disclosures of these references.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 16 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome. Claims 2-15 and 17-20 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claims 1 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights