CTNF 19/228,274 CTNF 87905 DETAILED NON-FINAL REISSUE ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Reissue Applications For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. 14-11-01 Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,879,316 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely appraise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1422.01, and 1442.04. Priority United States Patent No. 10,879,316 (hereafter “the ‘316 patent”) was filed on 21 August 2019 and claims priority to provisional application KR 10-2019-0007770 filed on 21 January 2019. Claim Status The following is the status of the claims Claims 21-37 are pending. Claims 21-37 are new. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/4/2025 and 2/13/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The reference sign 170 described in column 16 at lines 11-14 of the specification is not in any of the drawings. Similarly, the reference signs 170_1 and 170_2 described in column 22 at lines 51-53 and column 26 at line 24-26 of the specification are not in any of the drawings. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3) govern the manner of making amendments (changes) to the drawings in a reissue application. The following guidance is provided as to the procedure for amending drawings. Applicant must submit a replacement sheet for each sheet of drawings containing a Figure to be revised. Any replacement sheet must comply with 37 CFR 1.84 and include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each figure that is amended must be identified by placing the word "Amended" at the bottom of that figure. Any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be identified as "Canceled" and also surrounded by brackets. All changes to the figure(s) must be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet which accompanies the papers including the amendment to the drawings. If desired, applicant may include a marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made. Such a marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Marked-up Drawings", and it must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 21 and 37 each recite “wherein a portion of the second electrode is separated by the first protrusion and the second protrusion”. However, neither the claims nor the ‘316 patent describe what the second electrode is separated from by the first protrusion and the second protrusion. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of what the claimed separation of the second electrode is relative to. For this reason claims 21 and 37 are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret a separation of the second electrode from any other element, portion, or part resulting from the first protrusion and the second protrusion as meeting the limitation of the claims. Appropriate action is required. Additionally, claims 21 and 37 each recite “wherein the second electrode is not separated in through a space between the first protrusion and the second protrusion”. However, neither the claims nor the ‘316 patent describe what the second electrode is not separated from by the first protrusion and the second protrusion. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of what it meant by the phrase “not separated in through a space”. For this reason claims 21 and 37 are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret a second electrode that is not interrupted between a first protrusion and a second protrusion as meeting the limitation of the claims. Appropriate action is required. Recapture 14-17 Claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC , 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith , 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc. , 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc. , 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc. , 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement , 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States , 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application. In Clement , 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a three step test for recapture analysis. In North American Container , 415 F.3d at 1349, 75 USPQ2d at 1556, the court restated this test as follows: We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process: (1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. Analysis As to step 1 , new claims 21 and 37 do not include any one of the following limitations found in the original patent claim 1. a. “wherein a plurality of pits are recessed from the upper surface of the pixel definition layer toward the substrate” b. “wherein the second electrode includes a first portion overlapping the plurality of pits and a second portion which does not overlap the plurality of pits” c. “wherein the first portion of the second electrode and the second portion of the second electrode are spaced apart from each other” Additionally, new claims 21 and 37 do not include any one of the following limitations found in the original patent claim 4. a. “a common organic layer which is disposed on the first electrode and the pixel definition layer” b. “wherein the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of pits between adjacent pixels wherein the plurality of pits are recessed from an upper surface of the pixel definition layer toward the substrate” c. “wherein the common organic layer and the second electrode are separated by the plurality of pits” d. “wherein each of the plurality of pits has a flat surface parallel to a top surface of the substrate and a side surface perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate” Further, new claims 21 and 37 do not include any one of the following limitations found in the original patent claim 12. a. “a common organic layer which is disposed on the first electrode and the pixel definition layer” b. “an organic light-emitting layer which is disposed on the common organic layer” c. “a second electrode which is disposed on the common organic layer and the organic light-emitting layer” d. “a thin film encapsulation layer disposed on the second electrode’ and a touch sensor layer on the thin film layer” e. “a touch sensor disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer” f. “wherein the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of pits between adjacent pixels wherein the common organic layer and the second electrode are separated by the plurality of pits” Additionally, new claims 21 and 37 do not include the limitation found in the original patent claim 13. a. “wherein the second electrode includes a first portion overlapping the plurality of spaces and a second portion which does not overlap the plurality of spacers, wherein the first portion of the second electrode and the second portion of the second electrode are spaced apart from each other”. Finally, new claims 21 and 37 do not include any of the following limitations found in the original patent claim 16. a. “a common organic layer which is disposed on the first electrode and the pixel definition layer” b. “an organic light-emitting layer which is dispose on the common organic layer and overlaps the emission portion” c. “wherein the common organic layer and the second electrode are separated by the plurality of spacers” d. “wherein each of the plurality of spacers has a top surface parallel to a top surface of the substrate and a side surface perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate” With respect to STEP 2 , if an original patent claim limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue application was originally relied upon by Applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art, the omitted limitation relates to subject matter previously surrendered by applicant. The reliance by applicant to define the original patent claims over the art can be by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. During prosecution of the application that became the ‘316 patent Applicant presented new or amended claims comprising the limitations described above when detailing the analysis under step 1 which were found to define the claims over the prior art . Additionally, in the Remarks filed with the claim amendments of 31 July 2020, Applicant argued that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the second electrode includes a first portion overlapping a plurality of pits and a second portion which does not overlap a plurality of pits, and wherein the first portion of the second electrode and the second portion of the second electrode are spaced apart from each other” Thus, during prosecution of the application that became ‘316, limitations described above were added and/or argued to make the claims patentable over the art. Any limitation presented, argued or stated to make the claims patentable over the art “generates” the surrender of claimed subject matter that omits that limitation in its entirety, i.e. surrender of any claim whose scope does not contain the limitation. Thus, new claims 21 and 37 relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution. As to STEP 3, new independent claims 21 and 37 are not materially narrowed in any other aspect. Accordingly, claims 21 and 37 are rejected as being improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter. Claims 22-36 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 21. Examiner Notes For the purpose of simplifying an explanation of how the cited prior art teaches each of the limitations recited in claims 21 and 37, the different limitations will be referred as described below. Claim 21: 21[pre]. A display device comprising: 21[a]. a substrate comprising a first pixel, a second pixel, and a third pixel, each of the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel comprising an emission portion and a non-emission portion; 21[b]. a first electrode disposed in the emission portion; 21[c]. a pixel definition layer disposed on an edge of the first electrode and in the non-emission portion; 21[d]. A plurality of protrusions disposed on the pixel definition layer; 21[e]. an organic light-emitting layer disposed on the first electrode and overlapping the emission portion; 21[f]. a second electrode disposed on the organic light-emitting layer; 21[g]. wherein the second pixel is adjacent to the first pixel is adjacent to the first pixel in a first direction; 21[h]. wherein the third pixel is adjacent to the first pixel in a second direction different from the first direction, 21[i]. wherein the third pixel is adjacent to the second pixel in a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction, 21[j]. wherein the first protrusion from among the plurality of protrusion is disposed between the first pixel and the second pixel in the first direction in a plan view, 21[k]. wherein a second protrusion from among the plurality of protrusions is disposed between the first pixel and the third pixel in the second direction in the plan view, 21[l]. wherein the first protrusion is spaced apart from the second protrusion in the plan view, 21[m]. wherein a portion of the second electrode is separated by the first protrusion and second protrusion, and 21[n]. wherein a second electrode is not separated in through a space between the first protrusion and the second protrusion. Claim 37: 37[pre]. An electronic device comprising: a display device comprising: 37[a]. a substrate comprising a first pixel, a second pixel, and a third pixel, each of the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel comprising an emission portion and a non-emission portion; 37[b]. a first electrode disposed in the emission portion; 37[c]. a pixel definition layer disposed on an edge of the first electrode and in the non-emission portion; 37[d]. a plurality of protrusions disposed on the pixel definition layer; 37[e]. an organic light-emitting layer disposed on the first electrode and overlapping the emission portion; and 37[f]. a second electrode disposed on the organic light-emitting layer, 37[g]. wherein the second pixel is adjacent to the first pixel in a first direction, 37[h]. wherein the third pixel is adjacent to the first pixel in a second direction different from the first direction, 37[i]. wherein the third pixel is adjacent to the second pixel in a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction, 37[j]. wherein a first protrusion from among the plurality of protrusions is disposed between the first pixel and the second pixel in the first direction in a plan view, 37[k]. wherein a second protrusion from among the plurality of protrusions is disposed between the first pixel and the third pixel in the second direction in the plan view, 37[l]. wherein the first protrusion is spaced apart from the second protrusion in the plan view, 37[m]. wherein a portion of the second electrode is separated by the first protrusion and the second protrusion, and 37[n]. wherein the second electrode is not separated in through a space between the first protrusion and the second protrusion. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21, 23-27, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 2018/0013092 (“Park) in view of Kanovsky et al., US 2018/0374450 (“Kanovsky”) . Regarding claims 21 and 37, 21[pre] & 37[pre] Park discloses an electronic OLED display device comprising [abstract, 0002]; 21[a] & 37[a]. a substrate 100 comprising a plurality of pixels each of which comprises a red (R-EML), green (G-EML), and blue (B-EML) subpixel wherein each subpixel comprises an emission portion and a non-emission portion [0018, 0062-0064, 0069, 0095-0100, Figs. 3, 4, 7]. PNG media_image1.png 402 686 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 4 of Park illustrating the layer arrangement of the subpixels of the disclosed OLED display device. 21[b] & 37[b]. each subpixel comprises a first electrode 110 which is disposed in the emission portion [0018, 0061, 0062, Fig. 4]. 21[c] & 37[c]. each subpixel comprises a bank 150 on the non-emission portion which corresponds to the claimed pixel definition layer [0062]. The bank 150 is disposed on an edge of the first electrode 110 [0062, Fig. 4] as claimed. 21[d] & 37[d]. the banks 150 of the subpixels comprises a spacer 151, 152 which protrudes from a top surface of the bank 150 [0062, 0069, 0070, Figs. 2-4] which corresponds to the claimed plurality of protrusions dispose on the pixel definition layer. 21[e] & 37[e]. each subpixel comprises an organic stack 115 disposed on the first electrode 110 and overlaps the emission portion [0062, Figs. 4, 5]. 21[f] & 37[e]. each subpixel comprise a second electrode 120 which is disposed on the organic stack 115 [0062, Fig. 4] which corresponds to the claimed second electrode disposed on the organic light-emitting layer. Park is silent regarding the second pixel being adjacent to the first pixel is adjacent to the first pixel in a first direction, the third pixel being adjacent to the first pixel in a second direction different from the first direction, and the third pixel being adjacent to the second pixel in a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction. However, Kanovsky discloses a display device comprising a plurality of pixel units [abstract, 0020]. Kanovsky teaches that it is conventional for the pixels in OLED display devices to be arranged in columns and rows [0003]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have arranged the pixels in the OLED device of Park so as to be in rows and column because as is taught by Kanovsky it was conventional in the art to do so. The pixels in the OLED display device of modified Park would have been arranged in column and rows as is shown in the figure below. PNG media_image2.png 578 844 media_image2.png Greyscale An illustration of a plurality of pixels arranged in to columns and rows as taught by Kanovsky. 21[g]-[i] & 37[g]-[i]. As can be seen in the figure above, when the pixels of Park are arranged in a conventional column and row arrangement the pixel arrangement would have been the same as that claimed. 21[j]-[l] & 37[j]-[l]. Further as is illustrated in the figure below, when the pixels of Park are arranged in a column and row arrangement is/was conventional, a first protrusion would have been disposed between a portion of the first and a portion of the second pixel in the first direction and a second protrusion would have been disposed between a portion of the first pixel and a portion of the third pixel in the second direction which is reasonably interpreted as meeting the claim limitation. Additionally, the first protrusion would have been spaced apart from the second protrusion as claimed. PNG media_image3.png 564 751 media_image3.png Greyscale An illustration showing the relative positions of a first and second protrusion in a pixel array 21[m] & 37[m]. As is shown in Figures 3 and 4 of Park, along the top of the protrusions, a portion of the second electrode 120 is elevated above (i.e., separated from) a portion of the second electrode that is disposed on the bank 150 which is reasonably interpreted as corresponding to the claimed portion of the second electrode that is separated by the first protrusion and the second protrusion. 21[n] & 37[n]. As is shown in Figures 3 and 4 of Park, the second electrode 120 is not interrupted between the protrusions which corresponds to the claimed second electrode not being separated in through a space between the first protrusion and the second protrusion. Regarding claims 23 and 24, Park teaches that the protrusions may have an inverted frustum shape having a top surface (i.e., a second face) that has a width that is larger than the width than the base (i.e., a first face) [0061, 0069, Fig. 3]. Regarding claim 25, Park teaches an embodiment comprising a first protrusion 351b having a width which is larger in a second direction than a width in the first direction, and a second protrusion 351a having a width which is larger in a first direction than a width in the second direction [0092, Fig. 6a]. Regarding claim 26, as can be seen in figure 3 of Park, Park discloses that the second electrode 120 comprises a first portion and a second portion which are separated by a space [0061, 0069, Fig. 3]. PNG media_image4.png 433 943 media_image4.png Greyscale Figure 3 of Park illustrating a second electrode comprising two portions Regarding claim 27, Park teaches that the protrusions may have an inverted frustum shape having a side surface disposed between a top surface (i.e., a second face) and a base (i.e., a first face) wherein the top surface has a width that is larger than the width of the base [0061, 0069, Fig. 3]. Additionally, Park teaches that the thickness of the second electrode 120 disposed on the side surface of the protrusion is less than a thickness of the second electrode 120 on the top surface (i.e., the second face) of the protrusion [0061, 0069, Fig. 3] . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 22, 26, 31, and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 21 and 31 of U.S. Patent No. RE 50,615 E (the reference patent) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation recited in claims 21 and 37 is recited in claims 21 and 31 of the reference patent . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE E SANDERSON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM to 7:00PM. 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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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. /LEE E SANDERSON/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991 Conferees: /Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 2 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 3 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 4 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 5 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 6 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 7 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 8 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 9 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 10 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 11 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 12 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 13 Art Unit: 3991 Application/Control Number: 19/228,274 Page 14 Art Unit: 3991
Prosecution Insights