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, 7, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12333102. Please see the chart below for claim correspondence.
19/211950
USPN12333102
1
19
2
--
3
--
4
--
5
--
6
--
7
19
8
--
9
19
10
--
11
--
12
--
13
--
14
--
15
--
16
--
17
--
18
--
19
--
20
--
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims as shown above all recite similar features. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed features of the reference application/patent to arrive at the instant claims, yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement. Please see an example of claim language correspondence below.
19/211950
USPN 12333102
1. A display device, comprising: a substrate;
1. A display device, comprising: a substrate;
a plurality of touch electrodes over the substrate, the plurality of touch electrodes including a first open area and a second open area; and
a plurality of touch electrodes on the encapsulation layer, the plurality of touch electrodes including an open area,
a plurality of sub-pixels on the substrate and each comprising an organic light emitting diode, the plurality of sub-pixels including a first sub-pixel in the first open area and a second sub-pixel in the second open area,
wherein the sub-pixel includes first and second emission areas and a first non-emission area in the open area of the plurality of touch electrodes,
wherein each of the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel includes first and second emission areas and a first non-emission area, the first non-emission area being configured to be in a black state or to have a lower brightness than the first and second emission areas, and
the first non-emission area being configured to be in a black state or to have a lower brightness than the first and second emission areas,
wherein the first and second emission areas of the first sub-pixel have different sizes from the first and second emission areas of the second sub-pixel, respectively, in a plan view.
19. The display device of claim 1, further comprising: another sub-pixel on the substrate and having third and fourth emission areas and a third non-emission area, wherein the plurality of touch electrodes further includes another open area, and the third and fourth emission areas and the third non-emission area of the other sub-pixel is disposed in the other open area, and wherein the first and second emission areas of the sub-pixel have different sizes from the third and fourth emission areas of the other sub-pixel, respectively, in the plan view.
The rest of the claims listed above correspond in a similar manner as discussed above.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11907454 in view of Lee (hereinafter Lee – US Doc. No. 20190252470). Please see the chart below for claim correspondence.
19/211950
USPN11907454
1
1
2
4
3
--
4
--
5
--
6
1
7
1
8
--
9
1
10
--
11
--
12
--
13
--
14
--
15
--
16
--
17
--
18
--
19
--
20
--
Regarding claim 1, USPN 11907454 does not specifically disclose multiple sub-pixels or that the first and second emission areas of the first sub-pixel were a different size of the first and second emission areas of the second sub-pixel.
Lee discloses an organic LED display including emission and non-emission areas for each sub-pixel wherein the first and second emission areas of the first sub-pixel have different sizes from the first and second emission areas of the second sub-pixel (see Figure 4 – note that the green sub-pixel [G] has a different size than that of the red sub-pixel [R] and thus the first and second emission areas inherently have different sizes since the pixels are different sizes) and also comprising a touch sensor layer on top of the encapsulation layer (see Figure 9, SEN).
It would have been obvious to combine the OLED display as disclosed by USPN 11907454 with OLED display including a touch sensitive layer and sub-pixels of different sizes as disclosed by LEE, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement.
Claims 2, 6, 7, and 9 correspond in to claims 4, 1, 1, and 1 (respectively) in a similar manner as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8, and 10-20 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 ADAM R GIESY whose telephone number is (571)272-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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.
/ADAM R. GIESY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights