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 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,228. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,299,228
1. A display panel comprising:
a first pixel area in which a plurality of light-emitting elements and a plurality of pixel circuits are disposed; and
a second pixel area in which a plurality of light-emitting elements, a plurality of first transparent extension lines, and a plurality of second transparent extension lines are disposed,
wherein the second pixel area includes:
a first insulating layer covering the first transparent extension lines; and
a second insulating layer covering the second transparent extension lines, and the first insulating layer,
wherein the first transparent extension lines overlap with the second transparent extension lines with the first insulating layer interposed therebetween,
anode electrodes of a first group of light-emitting elements disposed in the second pixel area are connected to the first transparent extension lines via contact holes penetrating the first and second insulating layers, and wherein, among the light-emitting elements disposed in the second pixel area, and
anode electrodes of a second group of light-emitting elements in the second pixel area are connected to the second transparent extension lines via contact holes penetrating the second insulating layer.
2. The display panel of claim 1, wherein a density of the light-emitting elements disposed in the second pixel area is the same as a density of the light-emitting elements disposed in the first pixel area.
1. A display panel comprising:
a first pixel area in which a plurality of light emitting elements and a plurality of pixel circuits are disposed; and
a second pixel area in which a plurality of light emitting elements are disposed, wherein: the second pixel area further includes a plurality of transparent extension lines … and… the plurality of transparent extension lines includes: a first transparent extension lines configured to connect a first group of light emitting elements disposed in the second pixel area to pixel circuits disposed in the first pixel circuit area; and a second transparent extension lines …
the second pixel area further includes:
a first insulating layer covering the first transparent extension lines; and
a second insulating layer covering the second transparent extension lines and the first insulating layer, and
wherein the first transparent extension lines overlap with the second transparent extension lines with the first insulating layer interposed therebetween,
anode electrodes of the first group of light emitting elements are connected to the first transparent extension lines via contact holes penetrating the first and second insulating layers, and
anode electrodes of the second group of light emitting elements are connected to the second transparent extension lines via contact holes penetrating the second insulating layer.
2. The display panel of claim 1, wherein a density of the light emitting elements disposed in the second pixel area is the same as a density of the light emitting elements disposed in the first pixel area.
The instant Application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentability distinct from each other because the instant Application claim is generic to all that is recited in the above patent claim. The more specific anticipates the broader (see In re Goodman – 29 USPQ2d 2010), also see Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2d, 189 and Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 1894). Therefore, the instant claim is anticipated by the above patent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20220109020) in view of Her et al. (US 20210013298).
As to claim 15, Lee discloses a display panel comprising:
a first pixel area (Fig. 2A(PX1), [0028]);
a second pixel area (Fig. 2A(PX2)) configured to be surrounded by the first pixel area (Fig. 2A(PX1)), and electrically connected to the first pixel area ([0028]: each of a plurality of second pixel regions PX2 may be surrounded by four adjacent first pixel regions PX1, Note: area having PX1 interpreted as “first pixel area” and area having PX2 interpreted as “second pixel area”, [0025]: a photoelectric conversion signal that is output from the second pixel region PX2 may be used to correct a photoelectric conversion signal that is output from the first pixel region PX1. Therefore, Px2 (second pixel area) electrically connected to Px1 (first pixel area)).
Lee does not specifically teach at least one touch sensor wiring arranged in the first pixel area and curved along an outer shape of the second pixel area.
Her teaches at least one wiring (Fig. 6A(DL)) arranged in an area and curved along an outer shape of another area (Fig. 6A, [0085]: data lines DL (or wires) that bypass the sensor hole 625 for the sensor 620).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display panel by incorporating Her’s idea of having curved wires to design a display panel where at least one touch sensor wiring arranged in the first pixel area and curved along an outer shape of the second pixel area in order to bypass the second pixel area to increase luminous efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 3-14 and 16-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFROZA Y CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-1543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571)272-7677. 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.
/AFROZA CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628