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 .
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.
The present reissue application is a reissue continuation of Application No. 18/227,973 (hereinafter the ‘973 reissue application), now U.S. Patent RE50,700, which is a reissue continuation of Application No. 17/141,942 (hereinafter the ‘942 reissue application), now U.S. Patent No. RE49,604. The ‘942 reissue application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 10,535,725 (hereinafter, the ‘725 patent), which issued from U.S. Application No. 16/239,704 (hereinafter, the ‘704 application).
Reissue Continuation
As noted in MPEP 1451.I, all multiple reissue applications resulting from a single patent must include as the first sentence of their respective specifications a cross reference to the other reissue application(s). The instant specification has such a cross reference added to the specification by the amendment beginning at col. 1, line 6.
However, the specifications in each of 18/227,973 and 17/141,942 have not yet been amended to recite the cross reference to all the reissue application of the ‘725 patent, including the instant reissue application. Since Serial Nos. 18/227,973 and 17/141,942 have already issued as reissue patents, it is requested that the amendment to the specifications to recite the cross reference be taken care of by Applicant by Certificate of Correction.
An exemplary statement that can be added as the first sentence of the specification of the reissue patents by Certificate of Correction is as follows: “Notice: More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of Patent No. 10,535,725. The reissue applications are application numbers 19/398,341, 18/227,973 (now RE50,700) and 17/141,942 (now RE49,604).”
For consistency, Applicant should also add this sentence as the first sentence of the instant reissue application.
Consent of Assignee
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking the written consent of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP § 1410.01.
A proper assent of the assignee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 is required in reply to this Office action.
The consent of assignee filed 11/24/2025 is a copy of the consent of assignee from the ‘942 reissue application. Since the ‘942 reissue application was not abandoned, the copy of the consent of assignee filed in the current application is inadequate. See MPEP §§ 1410.02.I and 1451.II.A.
Additionally, the signer of the Consent of Assignee, Dong Ho Lee, has the title “Group Leader, IP Prosecution Group” and thus, is not presumed to have apparent authority to sign on behalf of the Assignee and there is no evidence in the instant reissue application file that Dong Ho Lee has authorization to act on behalf of Assignee. See MPEP 325.V for who has apparent authority to sign on behalf of Assignee.
A new consent of assignee is required.
Reissue Declaration and 35 USC 251
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The reissue declaration lists more the one inventor. Accordingly, below the first listed inventor in the declaration, the box must be checked for “Additional inventors are named on separately numbered sheets attached hereto,”
PNG
media_image1.png
32
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also, since the instant reissue application is a broadening reissue application, the box should be checked indicating the original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46:
PNG
media_image2.png
34
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
If such a box cannot be checked, then a reissue declaration executed by the inventors, not Assignee, must be filed.
Also, the error statement in the reissue declaration should state “See attached sheet” at the following location pointed to below by the annotation arrow so as to clearly point out that there is an attachment with respect to the error statement of the declaration:
PNG
media_image3.png
129
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the attachment to the reissue declaration is signed by Dong Ho Lee, who, as noted above, is not authorized to act on behalf of Assignee.
A new reissue declaration is required.
Claims 9-37 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 23 and 37 are indefinite because “the substrate in the display region” at the last line of each of said claims lacks positive antecedent basis in the respective claim. The same applies to dependent claims 10-22 and 24-36. For claims 9 and 37, it is suggested that the last line in the claim, i.e., “wherein the second insulation layer is disposed on the substrate in the display region” be changed to “wherein the substrate is also in the display region, and the second insulation layer is disposed on the substrate in the display region.”
Likewise, in claim 23, it is suggested that the last line in the claim, i.e., “wherein the third insulation layer is disposed on the substrate in the display region” be changed to “wherein the substrate is also in the display region, and the third insulation layer is disposed on the substrate in the display region.”
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 9-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-36 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,604 (hereinafter RE ‘604) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0123125 to Lee et al (hereinafter Lee).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of RE ‘604 disclose an organic light emitting display (OLED) device comprising a display region, an opening region inside the display region, and a boundary region between the display region and the opening region. The boundary region comprises:
an insulation layer disposed on a substrate, the insulation layer including a first
region and a second region adjacent to the first region,
a conductive layer/pattern comprising at least two layers disposed between the insulation layer in the first region and a pixel electrode in the display region and including at least one of titanium (Ti) and aluminum (Al) and
a common layer disposed on the conductive layer that is disposed over the insulation layer in the first region and on the insulation layer in the second region, and wherein the common layer disposed on the conductive layer that is disposed over the insulation layer in the first region is disconnected from the common layer disposed on the insulation layer in the second region.
The claims of RE ’604 also recite that the boundary region comprises a second conductive pattern disposed on the insulation layer and spaced apart from the first conductive pattern, and comprises at least two layers disposed between the insulation layer in the boundary region and a pixel electrode in the display region and includes at least one of titanium (Ti) and aluminum (Al).
The claims of RE ’604 do not recite that the display device comprises a second insulation layer disposed on the first insulation layer in the first region and on the substrate as recited in claims 9-22 and 37. The claims of the RE ’604 also do not recite that the display device comprises a second and a third insulation layer disposed on the first insulation layer and on the substrate and wherein the second insulation layer is spaced apart from the second insulation layer as recited in claims 23-36.
Lee teaches an organic light-emitting display device comprising multiple insulation layers including layers 203, 207, 208, 220 disposed on a substrate 210 (see ¶¶ 0041-0049] and Fig. 8, reproduced below). Lee also teaches that layer 207 comprises two layers (which may be considered as second and third insulation layers), which are spaced apart by a lower electrode 209 (see Fig. 8). Lee further teaches that the insulation layers may also function as a passivation layer or a planarization layer (see ¶¶ 0045-0046].
PNG
media_image4.png
210
408
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add multiple insulation layers in the display device recited in the claims of RE ‘604 including a second and/or a third insulation layers in order to provide additional functions such as passivation and planarization to the display device.
Claims 9-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-37 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,700 (hereinafter RE ‘700).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
Claims 9-37 of RE ‘500 teach all of the limitations of the instant claims other than the requirements that the display region also has the substrate and that the second insulation layer (as per instant claims 9 and 37) or the third insulation layer on the substrate in the display region (as per instant claim 23). Note that claims 9 and 37 of RE ‘500 already require that the second insulation layer extends into the display region, and claim 23 of RE ‘500 already requires that the third insulation layer extends into the display region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further included the substrate in RE ‘500’s claims in the display region, and thus, to have the second insulation layer or third insulation layer that extends into the display region to be on the substrate, so that the substrate provides support for the entire OLED device including the display region.
Duty to Disclose
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,535,725 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 apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D DIAMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-1338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 5:30 am to 3:00 pm, and Fridays from 5:30 am to 9:30 am.
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 on 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.
Signed:
/ALAN D DIAMOND/Patent Reexamination Specialist
Central Reexamination Unit 3991
Conferees:
/JOSEPH R KOSACK/Patent Reexamination Specialist
Central Reexamination Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights