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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on Jan. 6th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-20 and 22-23 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-4, 10-15 and 22-23 are examined in this office action. Claims 6-9 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 10-15 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20160172426) in view of Hong et al. (US 20180095570).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a display device (Abstract) comprising:
a transistor (fig. 8, thin film transistor (TFT) (not shown) on base substrate; para. 0068) disposed on a substrate (base substrate of substrate 410; para. 0068, 0127);
a pixel electrode (pixel electrodes 421a, 421b, 421c; para. 0127) electrically connected (in the same device) to the transistor (TFT);
an emission layer (intermediate layers 423a, 423b, and 423c including organic emission layers; para. 0127) disposed on the pixel electrode (421);
a common electrode (opposite electrode 425; para. 0127) disposed on the emission layer (423);
a light blocking member (black matrix 440 including a light-blocking units; para. 0127) being integrally formed of a single layer (440 is a single layer) that includes a black color pigment (440 as light-blocking portion comprising black pigments; para. 0045),
wherein the single layer of the light blocking member (440) that includes the black color pigment (black pigment) overlaps the entire emission layer (421), and
wherein the single layer of the light blocking member (440) that includes the black color pigment (black pigment) is disposed (on top of 425).
Kim fails to explicitly teach a detection electrode disposed on the common electrode; and
the light blocking member disposed on the detection electrode and is disposed directly on the detection electrode.
However, Hong teaches a detection electrode (Hong: fig. 8, conductive lines 313 of touch sensing cells; para. 0107) disposed on the common electrode (Hong: second electrode 113; para. 0048, similar to 425 of Kim); and
the light blocking member (Hong: black matrix 510 and color filters 520; para. 0134, similar to 440 of Kim) disposed on the detection electrode (Hong: 313) and is disposed directly on the detection electrode (Hong: 313).
Hong and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the light blocking member is disposed directly on the detection electrode as taught by Hong.
Doing so would realize a more compact touch electrode structure to improve viewing angle (Hong: para. 0143).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the single layer of the light blocking member (Kim: fig.8, 440) that includes the black color pigment (Kim: black pigment) is disposed across an entirety of the substrate (Kim: emission area and a non-emission area of the substrate 410; para. 0030).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the single layer of the light blocking member (Kim: fig.8, 440) that includes the black color pigment (Kim: black pigment) overlaps the pixel electrode (Kim: 421).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
an encapsulation layer (Hong: fig. 8, encapsulation layer 130; para. 0076) disposed on the common electrode (Hong: 113),
wherein the detection electrode (Hong: 313) is disposed on the encapsulation layer (Hong: 130).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the light blocking member (Kim: fig. 8, 440) comprises:
a first light blocking portion (Kim: first light-blocking portion 441; para. 0127) having a first thickness (Kim: first thickness t1; para. 0130); and
a second light blocking portion (Kim: second light-blocking portion 442; para. 0127) having a second thickness (Kim: second thickness t2; para. 0130), and
the first thickness (Kim: t1) is greater than the second thickness (Kim: t2).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein the display device comprises a plurality of pixels (Kim: fig. 8, sub-pixel areas of emission area EA; para. 0069),
the first light blocking portion (Kim: 441) overlaps a boundary of the plurality of pixels (Kim: non-emission area NA as boundary of EA; para. 0069), and
the second light blocking portion (Kim: 442) overlaps the plurality of pixels (Kim: EA).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein the first light blocking portion (Kim: fig. 8, 441) does not overlap the emission layer (Kim: 423 in EA, which emit light as the emission layer. In an alternative consideration, 441 also does not overlap 423 in horizontal direction), and
the second light blocking portion (Kim: 442) overlaps the emission layer (Kim: 423 in EA).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 10, further comprising:
an encapsulation layer (Hong: fig. 8, encapsulation layer 130; para. 0076) disposed on the common electrode (Hong: 113),
wherein the detection electrode (Hong: 313) is disposed on the encapsulation layer (Hong: 130).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein the light blocking member (Hong: fig. 8, 510, 520 similar to 440 of Kim) is disposed on the detection electrode (Hong: 313),
the first light blocking portion (Kim: 441 in NA as 510, 520 in boundary) overlaps the detection electrode (Hong: 313 in boundary), and
the second light blocking portion (Kim: 442) overlaps the pixel electrode (Kim: 421).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 14, wherein each of the first light blocking portion (Kim: fig. 8, 441) and the second light blocking portion (Kim: 442) of the light blocking member (Kim: 440) is formed of a single layer (Kim: 440 is a single layer), and
the first light blocking portion (Kim: 441) and the second light blocking portion (Kim: 442) are formed by using a mask (Kim: using a mask; para. 0022).
Regarding claim 22, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a planarization layer (Hong: fig. 8, planarization layer 250, pixel definition layer 270; para. 0069) with an opening (opening for pixel) exposing a part of the top surface of the pixel electrode (Hong: first electrode 111; para. 0067, similar to 421 of Kim), wherein the light blocking member (Kim: fig. 8, 440) has a transmittance of 5% or less (Kim: 0.2% or less; para. 0010) directly above a center of the opening (center of opening for pixel).
Regarding claim 23, Kim in view of Hong teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the light blocking member (Kim: fig. 3, in an alternative consideration, just second light-blocking unit 242 is a single layer; para. 0110) has a constant thickness (Kim: fifth thickness t5; para. 0110).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 10-15 and 22-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma et al. (US 20190074339) teaches a detection electrode.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818