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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed by Applicant on 06/25/2026. This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant amended claim 1 in order to overcome the statutory type Double Patenting rejection. However, a non-statutory type Double Patenting rejection applies.
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,382. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Consider Claim 1, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,382 as previously indicated in the office action mailed on 03/27/2026 (incorporated by reference herein). However, claim 1of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,382 does not specifically show the limitations of “the first extending portion and the second extending portion are at different positions in the first direction.” In related art, Miki et al shows that “the first extending portion and the second extending portion are at different positions in the first direction.” (see paragraphs 3 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Miki et al into the teaching of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,382 in order to improve the efficiency of use of light (see Miki et al; paragraphs 4-6).
Claim 2 is anticipated by claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,382.
Claim 3 is anticipated by claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,382.
Claim 4 is anticipated by claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,382.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowed if the Applicant overcomes the Double Patenting rejection.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The best prior art of
record, i.e., Miki et al (Publication number: US 2016/0223870) do not specifically show the
limitations of "a first conductive layer under the first pixel electrode and including a first wiring portion and a first extending portion, wherein the first wiring portion extends in a first direction, and the first extending portion extends from the first wiring portion in a second direction intersecting the first direction and partially overlaps the first light-emitting region in a plane view to pass over a central portion of the first light-emitting region; and a second conductive layer under the second pixel electrode and including a second wiring portion and a second extending portion, wherein the second wiring portion is spaced apart from the first wiring portion by a first distance and extends in the first direction, and the second extending portion extends from the second wiring portion in the second direction, wherein the first extending portion physically connects the first wiring portion to the second wiring portion such that the first wiring portion and the second wiring portion are electrically connected to each other, and the first extending portion and the second extending portion are at different positions in the first direction.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A FARAGALLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/MICHAEL A FARAGALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624 09/19/2026
Prosecution Insights