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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/14/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-10 and 21-22 in the reply filed on July 14th, 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 21 and 22 have been amended. Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-10 and 21-22 as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2016/0322595, hereinafter as Choi ‘595) in view of Lee (US 2016/0275910, hereinafter as Lee ‘910) and further in view of Na (US 2020/0312941, hereinafter as Na ‘941).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi ‘595 teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2, (80); [0078]);
an organic insulating layer (Fig. 2, (110); [0085]) arranged on the substrate;
a plurality of display elements arranged on the organic insulating layer and comprising a plurality of first display elements (see Fig. 3; (P); [0059]) and a plurality of second display elements (see Fig. 3; (P); [0059]), the plurality of display elements comprising a plurality of pixel electrodes (210; [0078]);
a plurality of emission layers (200; [0078]) disposed on each of the plurality of the pixel electrode (210; [0078]) (see Fig. 1));
an opposite electrode (220; [0078]) disposed on the plurality of emission layers;
a lower line (270; [0078]) arranged between the substrate (80) and the organic insulating layer (110) (see Fig. 2); and
an upper line (220; [0058]) arranged on the organic insulating layer (110), and electrically connecting one of the plurality of second display elements and another one of the plurality of second display elements to each other (see Fig. 3);
a pixel defining layer (230; [0078]), the pixel defining layer including a plurality of openings overlapping the plurality of pixel electrodes (210).
Thus, Choi ‘595 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the pixel defining layer covering the upper line; and wherein an entire portion of the upper line is disposed on a same layer as the plurality of pixel electrodes”.
Lee ‘910 teaches the pixel defining layer (Fig. 5A, (PDL); [0064]) covering the upper line (L11 and L12; [0093]); and wherein an entire portion of the upper line (L11 and L12) is disposed on a same layer as the plurality of pixel electrodes (E3; [0100]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi ‘595 by having the pixel defining layer covering the upper line; and wherein an entire portion of the upper line is disposed on a same layer as the plurality of pixel electrodes for the purpose of improving display quality (see para. [0009]) as suggested by Lee ‘910.
Thus, Choi ‘595 and Lee ‘910 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a lower line electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of first display elements to each other; and the opposite electrode is disposed on the pixel defining layer”.
Na ‘941 teaches a lower line (Fig. 7C, (CM); [0116]) electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of display elements to each other (see para. [0116]); and the opposite electrode (223; [0099]) is disposed on the pixel defining layer (119; [0091]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi ‘595 and Lee ‘910 by having a lower line electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of first display elements to each other; the opposite electrode is disposed on the pixel defining layer in order to reduce an asymmetric color shift effect and ensure excellent visibility, while also reducing a variation in characteristics of pixels of the organic light emitting display device (see para. [0006] and [0119]) as suggested by Na ‘941.
Regarding Claim 21, Choi ‘595 teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2, (80); [0078]);
an organic insulating layer (Fig. 2, (110); [0085]) arranged on the substrate;
a plurality of display elements arranged on the organic insulating layer and comprising a plurality of first display elements and a plurality of second display elements (see Fig. 3; (P); [0059]), the plurality of display elements comprising a plurality of pixel electrodes (210; [0078]);
a plurality of emission layers (200; [0078]) disposed on each of the plurality of the pixel electrode (210; [0078]) (see Fig. 1));
an opposite electrode (220; [0078]) disposed on the plurality of emission layers;
a lower line (270; [0078]) arranged between the substrate (80) and the organic insulating layer (110) (see Fig. 2); and
an upper line (220; [0058]) arranged on the organic insulating layer (110) (see Fig. 3).
Thus, Choi ‘595 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the upper line under the opposite electrode, and electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of second display elements and the pixel electrode of another one of the plurality of second display elements to each other”.
Lee ‘910 teaches the upper line (L11 and L12; [0093]) under the opposite electrode (E4), and electrically connecting the pixel electrode (E3) of one of the plurality of second display elements and the pixel electrode (E3) of another one of the plurality of second display elements to each other (see Fig. 5A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi ‘595 by having the upper line electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of second display elements and the pixel electrode of another one of the plurality of second display elements to each other for the purpose of improving display quality (see para. [0009]) as suggested by Lee ‘910.
Thus, Choi ‘595 and Lee ‘910 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a lower line electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of first display elements to each other”.
Na ‘941 teaches a lower line (Fig. 7C, (CM); [0116]) electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of display elements to each other (see para. [0116]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi ‘595 and Lee ‘910 by having a lower line electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of first display elements to each other in order to reduce an asymmetric color shift effect and ensure excellent visibility, while also reducing a variation in characteristics of pixels of the organic light emitting display device (see para. [0006] and [0119]) as suggested by Na ‘941.
Regarding Claim 2, Choi ‘595 teaches the lower line (270) and the upper line (220) cross each other in a plan view (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi ‘595 teaches a first thin-film transistor (TFT; [0063]) arranged on the substrate, and comprising a first semiconductor layer (275; [0081]) and a first gate electrode (260; [0092]) overlapping the first semiconductor layer, the first semiconductor layer (275) including a silicon semiconductor (see para. [0094]); a first inorganic insulating layer covering the first gate electrode (290; [0078]);
Lee ‘910 teaches a second thin-film transistor (Fig. 5A, (TR2); [0098]) arranged on the first inorganic insulating layer (30; [0062]), and comprising a second semiconductor layer (SM2; [0059]) and a second gate electrode (GE2; [0060]) overlapping the second semiconductor layer (SM2), the second semiconductor layer including an oxide semiconductor (see para. [0059]); and a second inorganic insulating layer (20; [0061]) arranged between the second semiconductor layer (SM2) and the second gate electrode (GE2),
Thus, Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910 and Na ‘941 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the lower line is arranged between the first inorganic insulating layer and the second inorganic insulating layer”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lower line that can be arranged in any order, thus the lower line is arranged between the first inorganic insulating layer and the second inorganic insulating layer involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to perform the arrangement when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 4, Choi ‘595 teaches an intermediate conductive pattern arranged between the lower line (270) and the second inorganic insulating layer (290; [0078]), wherein the second inorganic insulating layer includes a contact hole (50; [0078]) overlapping the intermediate conductive pattern (see Fig.2).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the intermediate conductive pattern that can be arranged in any order, thus the intermediate conductive pattern is arranged between the lower line and the second inorganic insulating layer involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to perform the arrangement when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 5, Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910 and Na ‘941 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the intermediate conductive pattern and the second semiconductor layer include a same material”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the intermediate conductive pattern and the second semiconductor layer include a same material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the intermediate conductive pattern and the second semiconductor layer include a same material when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 6, Choi ‘595 teaches one of the plurality of pixel electrodes at least partially covers one side of the lower line, and another one of the plurality of pixel electrodes at least partially covers another side of the lower line (see Fig. 3).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select one of the plurality of pixel electrodes at least partially covers one side of the upper line, and another one of the plurality of pixel electrodes at least partially covers another side of the upper line on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to perform the arrangement when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 7, Choi ‘595 teaches the plurality of display elements constitutes a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel which emit light of different wavelengths from each other (see para. [0088]), wherein the second sub-pixel is arranged at a center of a virtual quadrilateral, wherein the first sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel are arranged at vertices of the virtual quadrilateral, respectively, and wherein the one of the plurality of first display elements and the other one of the plurality of first display elements constitute one of the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel, respectively (see Fig. 1; [0088]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first/second/third sub-pixel that can be arranged in any order, thus the second sub-pixel is arranged at a center of a virtual quadrilateral, wherein the first sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel are arranged at vertices of the virtual quadrilateral, respectively involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to perform the arrangement when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 8, Choi ‘595 teaches a pixel circuit electrically connected to the plurality of display elements, wherein the substrate comprises a first area and a second area arranged adjacent to the first area (see Fig. 3); and wherein the pixel circuit is arranged in the second area.
Lee ‘910 teaches the plurality of display elements is arranged in the first area and the second area (see Figs. 1 and 2),
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910, in view of Na ‘941 and further in view of Kang (US 2019/0288048, hereinafter as Kang ‘048).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910 and Na ‘941 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a connection line arranged on a same layer as the upper line, wherein the plurality of first display elements and the plurality of second display elements are arranged in the first area, and extends to the second area from the first area”
Kang ‘048 teaches a connection line (Fig. 16, (215); [0143]) arranged on a same layer as the upper line, wherein the plurality of first display elements and the plurality of second display elements are arranged in the first area (1A), and extends to the second area (2A) from the first area (1A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910 and Na ‘941 and Kang ‘048 by having a connection line arranged on a same layer as the upper line, wherein the plurality of first display elements and the plurality of second display elements are arranged in the first area, and extends to the second area from the first area in order to supply data signals or driving voltages through various routes, and minimize the interruptions between the wires (see para. [0130]) as suggested by Kang ‘048.
Thus, Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910, Na ‘941 and Kang ‘048 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the connection line comprises a transparent conductive material”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (e.g. a transparent conductive material (ITO); see para. [0086] of Choi ‘595 as an evidence) on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the transparent conductive material for the connection line when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 22, Choi ‘595 teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2, (80); [0078]);
an organic insulating layer (Fig. 2, (110); [0085]) arranged on the substrate;
a plurality of display elements arranged on the organic insulating layer and comprising a plurality of first display elements and a plurality of second display elements (see Fig. 3; (P); [0059]), the plurality of display elements comprising a plurality of pixel electrodes (210; [0078]);
a plurality of emission layers (200; [0078]) disposed on each of the plurality of the pixel electrode (210; [0078]) (see Fig. 1));
an opposite electrode (220; [0078]) disposed on the plurality of emission layers;
a lower line (270; [0078]) arranged between the substrate (80) and the organic insulating layer (110) (see Fig. 2); and
an upper line (220; [0058]) arranged on the organic insulating layer (110).
Thus, Choi ‘595 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the upper line under the opposite electrode, electrically connecting one of the plurality of second display elements and another one of the plurality of second display elements to each other”.
Lee ‘910 teaches the upper line (L11 and L12; [0093]) under the opposite electrode (E4), electrically connecting one of the plurality of second display elements (OLED2) and another one of the plurality of second display elements (OLED2) to each other (see Fig. 5A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi ‘595 by having the upper line electrically connecting one of the plurality of second display elements and another one of the plurality of second display elements to each other for the purpose of improving display quality (see para. [0009]) as suggested by Lee ‘910.
Thus, Choi ‘595 and Lee ‘910 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a lower line electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of first display elements to each other”.
Na ‘941 teaches a lower line (Fig. 7C, (CM); [0116]) electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of display elements to each other (see para. [0116]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi ‘595 and Lee ‘910 by having a lower line electrically connecting the pixel electrode of one of the plurality of first display elements to each other in order to reduce an asymmetric color shift effect and ensure excellent visibility, while also reducing a variation in characteristics of pixels of the organic light emitting display device (see para. [0006] and [0119]) as suggested by Na ‘941.
Thus, Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910 and Na ‘941 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the lower line and the upper line are electrically insulated from each other”.
Kang ‘048 teaches the lower line (W3; [0130]) and the upper line (330; [0086]) are electrically insulated from each other (see Fig. 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910 and Na ‘941by having the lower line and the upper line are electrically insulated from each other in order to supply data signals or driving voltages through various routes, and minimize the interruptions between the wires (see para. [0130]) as suggested by Kang ‘048.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910 and Na ‘941 as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Bok (US 2018/0089485, hereinafter as Bok ‘485).
Regarding Claim 10, Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910 and Na ‘941 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a component overlapping the first area”.
Bok ‘485 teaches a component (FPS; [0087]) overlapping the first area (A1) (see Fig. 1A and 1B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi ‘595, Lee ‘910 and Na ‘941 by having a component overlapping the first area for sensing the fingerprint of the user (see para. [0087]) as suggested by Bok ‘485.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 21-22, filed on July 14th, 2025, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893