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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/5/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 3-4, and 6-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art how the phrase “electrically connected to a ground potential so as to neutralize positive charges trapped in the substrate at portions corresponding to the edge area” should be interpreted as Applicant discloses that the trapping of positive charges does not occur when the device is off but occurs during the steps of initial and long-term driving (¶ 0108 of Applicant’s Specification as originally filed) and that the neutralization occurs during a step of re-driving (¶ 0109 of Applicant’s Specification). As such, the positive charges are not always present in the device and even when they are present they are only neutralized an even smaller portion of the time (i.e., the redriving step). As the claim is directed to a device and not a method of using the device, it is unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art if a device that is not being used or is being used but in a step other that the re-driving step would read upon claim 1. For the purpose of this Office action, “electrically connected to a ground potential so as to neutralize positive charges trapped in the substrate at portions corresponding to the edge” is interpreted as “connected to a potential”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0096913 A1; hereinafter Lee) in view of Tang (US 2021/0367022 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display apparatus (“display device 100” in Fig. 1; ¶ 0076), comprising
a display panel (100) which is divided into a display area (“active area A/A”; ¶ 0034) and a non-display area (“non-active area N/A”; ¶ 0034) and includes a substrate (“flexible substrate 110”, ¶ 0033);
a pixel unit transistor (“circuitry can include . . . a driving thin-film transistor”, ¶ 0035) provided in the display area (¶ 0035);
a gate in panel (GIP) transistor provided in the non-display area (“GIP”, ¶ 0036);
a conductive pattern (combination of “conductive layer 121” and “flexible film 160”) which is disposed below the substrate and is disposed in an edge area of the display area and in the non-display area (see Fig. 1), the conductive pattern being absent at central portions of the display area (portions between 121 and 160) such that the conductive pattern forms a frame around the central portions (see Fig. 1), and the conductive pattern being connected to a potential (¶ 0049); and
a barrier film (combination of 122-124) which is disposed below the substrate and the conductive pattern (see Fig. 1) to be in direct contact with the substrate and the conductive pattern (see Fig. 1).
Lee does not explicitly disclose that the pixel unit transistor is above the substrate.
However, there was a benefit to forming the pixel unit transistor, as well as the emissive material, to be above the substrate in that the emissive material will be closer to the light emitting surface (top surface in Fig. 1) and the pixel unit transistor will be closer to the emissive material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the pixel unit transistor above the substrate for this benefit.
Lee does not disclose a light shield layer as claimed.
Tang, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a light shielding layer (40 in Fig. 1) disposed between a substrate (10) and a pixel unit transistor ((combination of 51, 804, and 82). There is a benefit to including a light shield layer as such in that it increases the aperture ratio (¶ 0053 of Tang). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have included a light shielding layer as taught by Tang disposed between the substrate and the pixel unit transistor of Lee for this benefit. In the device of the combination, the light shielding layer is disposed below the pixel unit transistor (see Fig. 1 of Tang) but the light shielding layer is not disposed below the GIP transistor (which is in the non-display area).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Tang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0098774 A1; hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Tang discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee further discloses a polarizing plate (150 in Fig. 1). With regards to the polarizing plate being below the substrate, Lee discloses that the location of the polarizing plate is not fixed and, as such, it may be moved to below the substrate (¶ 0043).
Lee does not disclose the inclusion of a back cover and roller as claimed.
Park, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a display apparatus in which a display panel (“display panel 10” in Fig. 2, ¶ 0050 of Park) is combined with a back cover (“cover 15”, ¶ 0050) on a rear surface of the display panel (see Fig. 2); and
a roller which is connected to the back cover to wind or unwind the back cover and the display panel (¶ 0063).
There was a benefit to using a back cover and a roller in that it allows for the display panel to be protectively stored when not in use.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a display apparatus with the display panel of Lee combined with the back cover and roller of Park for this benefit.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee, Tang, and Park discloses the display apparatus of claim 3, as discussed above.
Lee further discloses that the substrate is made of polyimide (¶ 0033 of Lee).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee, Tang, and Park discloses the display apparatus of claim 3, as discussed above.
Lee further discloses that the conductive pattern is coextensive with the display panel (¶ 0044) and, therefore, when formed to be rectangular to function with the back cover and roller of Park (see Fig. 2 of Park), the conductive pattern will be formed in an entire edge of the display panel in the form of a rectangular frame (the Examiner notes that ‘frame’ is being interpreted as an underlying constructional structure that gives shape or strength).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee, Tang, and Park discloses the display apparatus of claim 3, as discussed above.
With regards to the grounded conductive pattern offsetting positive charges trapped in the edge area of the display panel by irregularity of an electric field depending on placement of the light shielding layer, this relates to how the apparatus is intended to be used. Intended use specifies an intended use or field of use, and is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). As the grounded conductive pattern is capable of offsetting positive charges trapped in the edge area of the display (see, e.g., Fig. 2 of Lee and the corresponding text), it satisfies this limitation.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee, Tang, and Park discloses the display apparatus of claim 3, as discussed above. Lee further discloses that the conductive pattern is disposed to extend from the edge area of the display area to the non-display area (see Fig. 1 of Lee).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tang and Park as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0011703 A1; hereinafter ‘703).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee, Tang, and Park discloses the display apparatus of claim 3, as discussed above. Lee in view of Park does not disclose that the conductive pattern is configured by a material as claimed.
‘703, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming conductive patterns by silver paste (¶ 0108 of ‘703). As silver paste and its corresponding function were known in the art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have used silver paste as taught by ‘703 and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections, Applicant only amended to address one of the rejections noted in the prior Office action. As such, the remaining rejections are maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior mapping of the conductive pattern does not conform to the newly added limitations. This argument is persuasive and, as such, a new mapping for the conduction pattern is proved in the rejections above to address these newly added limitations.
Applicant further argues Lee does not disclose applying a ground. This argument is not persuasive as the application of a ground potential is indefinite subject matter as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections both in the prior Office action and above (see above comment concerning not addressing all of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights