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
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 08/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See rejection below.
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 and 6-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “the pixel openings” in lines 4-5 lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite if “the pixel openings” refers to the “a plurality of pixel openings” arranged in the array or not. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 6 recites “each corresponding to one of the pixel openings” is unclear and indefinite as to each of what is corresponding to one of the pixel openings. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “the pixel openings” in line 6 and line 7 lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite if “the pixel openings” refers to the “a plurality of pixel openings” arranged in the array or not. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, lines 9-10 recites “each corresponding to one of the pixel openings” is unclear and indefinite as to each of what is corresponding to one of the pixel openings. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 10 recites “the pixel openings” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite if “the pixel openings” refers to the “a plurality of pixel openings” arranged in the array or not. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 14 recites “the dimmer openings” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 16 recites “the projection” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear as to the projection of what. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 17 recites “the first side edge of a pixel opening” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 17 recites “a pixel opening” is unclear and indefinite if this recitation is referring one of the “a plurality of pixel openings” recites in line 4. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 17 recites “the dimmer opening” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 18 recites “the dimmer opening” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, lines 16-18 recites “the first protrusion being at least partially located on a side of the first side edge of a pixel opening corresponding to the dimmer opening that is away from a center of the dimmer opening” is unclear if “the first protrusion” or “the first side edge” that is away from a center of the dimmer opening. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1 lines 14-15 recites “a projection of at least one of the dimmer openings on the substrate comprising a body portion” and then line 19 recites “a projection of the body portion on the substrate” is unclear and indefinite since lines 14-15 already recites “a projection of at least one of the dimmer openings on the substrate comprising a body portion” which means “a projection of the body portion on the substrate” in line 19 is already recited in line 14-15. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite if line 19 recitation of “a projection of the body portion on the substrate” is another projection of a projection that is already on the substrate and then how is a projection being projected again? As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 19-20 and line 20-21 recites “the projection of the pixel opening” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the recitation is referring to one of the “a plurality of pixel openings” in line 4. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, line 20 recites “similar in shape”, the term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 6-10, 15, 18 and 19 recites “the first protrusion” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite if “the first protrusion” is referring to one of the “at least one first protrusion” recited in claim 1 or not. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 6-8 recites “the first side edge” is unclear and indefinite as to the first side edge of what exactly. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “the dimmer openings” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “a first side edge” is unclear and indefinite if this is referring to “a first side edge” recited in line 5 of Claim 1 or not. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 9-10 line 1 recites “the light emitting units” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite the light emitting units are subset of the “a light emitting units” recited in claim 1 or not. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 9-10 recite “a first direction” and claim 1 recites “a first direction” is unclear and indefinite if claim 9 “first direction” is referring to claim 1 “first direction”. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 9 recites “first protrusions” is unclear and indefinite if this referring to the “at least one first protrusion” recited in claim 1 line 15. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 9-10 recite “body portions” which is a plural and is unclear and indefinite if this referring to the “a body portion” which is singular recited in claim 1 line 15. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 9-10 and 16 recite “the first light-emitting units” lacks antecedent basis and is unclear if “the first light-emitting units” are subset of the “a plurality of first light-emitting units”. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the projection of each of the pixel openings” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite if the projection of each of the pixel openings referring to those of the “a projection of at least one of pixel openings” in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the projection of each of the dimming openings” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite it is referring to each of the “a plurality of dimming openings” in claim 1. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the dimmer opening” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the center of the dimming opening” lacks antecedent basis as “the center” lacks antecedent basis and “the dimming opening” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 12 and 14 -15 recite “the second protrusion” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if this is referring to one of the “at least one of the second protrusion” in claim 11. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “a first protrusion” is unclear and indefinite if this referring to the “at least one first protrusion” in claim 1. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “a second protrusion” is unclear and indefinite if this referring to the “at least one second protrusion” in claim 11. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “the second protrusion” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear indefinite if it is referring to is unclear and indefinite if this referring to the “at least one second protrusion” in claim 11. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “the first light-emitting units are symmetrical” is unclear and indefinite if the first light-emitting unites are referring subset of the “a plurality of first light-emitting units” in claim 16. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “each of the pixel openings” lacks antecedent basis and is unclear and indefinite if “the pixel openings” are subset of the “a plural of pixel openings” in claim 1.
Claim 17 recites “the dimmer openings” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “the third protrusion” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “the third protrusion being at least partially located on a side of the third side edge of a pixel opening corresponding to the dimmer opening that is away from a center of the dimmer opening” is unclear if “the third protrusion” or “the third side edge” that is away from a center of the dimmer opening. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 17-18 recites “the dimming openings” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 18-19 recites “the pixel openings” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 18-19 recites “the dimming opening” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 18-49 recites “the first protrusion” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 20 is rejected under 112 2nd for the same reasoning as that rejected for 112 2nd of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. 20220173361.
PNG
media_image1.png
583
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
789
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
441
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 20, figs. 3-5 of Cho discloses a display apparatus comprising a display panel comprising:
a substrate 100;
a pixel definition layer 190 located on a side of the substrate and comprising a plurality of pixel openings 190P (fig. 3) arranged in an array, a projection of at least one of the pixel openings on the substrate comprising a first side edge (as labeled by examiner above);
a plurality of light-emitting units each corresponding to one of the pixel openings, and each located in the corresponding one of the pixel openings (see figs. 3 and 5);
a first dimming layer 430 located on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the substrate, the first dimming layer comprising a plurality of dimming openings 430OP each corresponding to one of the pixel openings;
a second dimming layer 450 located on a surface of a side of the first dimming layer away from the substrate, a refractive index of the second dimming layer being greater than a refractive index of the first dimming layer (par [0150] - The third insulating layer 450 may include dispersed particles for making a high refractive index, for example, metal oxide such as zinc oxide (ZnO.sub.x), titanium oxide (TiO.sub.2), and zirconium oxide (ZrO.sub.2) dispersed in the organic insulating material);
PNG
media_image4.png
685
813
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a projection of at least one of the dimmer openings W4 (see fig. 4 showing 510 acts as a dimmer as it blocks light) on the substrate comprising a body portion (W3 portion – as labeled by examiner above) and at least one first protrusion (w4-w3 portion – as labeled by examiner above) connected to the body portion, and in a plane of the projection, the first protrusion being at least partially located on a side (outer side) of the first side edge of a pixel opening corresponding to the dimmer opening that is away from a center of the dimmer opening (the outer side is away from center,
wherein a projection of the body portion on the substrate and the projection of the pixel opening on the substrate are similar in shape (see fig. 4 showing 8 sided shape), and a total area of the body portion is greater than or equal to a total area of the projection of the pixel opening overlapping the body portion on the substrate (see fig. 4); and
an extension direction of the first side edge is a first direction (x-direction), a length L1 (which is W4-W3 which is Δd – par [0097]) of the first protrusion is smaller than a length L of the body portion along the first direction (which is W3), and L1 > L/2 (see par [0097]).
PNG
media_image5.png
670
668
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, fig. 4 of Cho (as labeled by examiner above) discloses wherein in the plane of the projection, the first protrusion comprises a second edge perpendicular to the first side edge.
Regarding claim 9, fig. 4 of Cho discloses wherein the light-emitting units comprise a plurality of first light-emitting units arranged in an array; in a first direction, positions of first protrusions relative to body portions in adjacent two of the first light-emitting units are different.
Regarding claim 10, fig. 3 of Cho discloses wherein the light-emitting units comprise a plurality of first light-emitting units arranged in an array; in a first direction (up and down the page – Y direction), body portions corresponding to adjacent two of the first light-emitting units are symmetrical with respect to a second symmetry axis (x-axis), and first protrusions corresponding to the adjacent two of the first light-emitting units are also symmetrical with respect to the second symmetry axis (x).
PNG
media_image6.png
666
755
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, fig. 4 of Cho discloses wherein the projection of each of the pixel openings on the substrate comprises a second side edge extending along the first direction; the projection of each of the dimming openings on the substrate further comprises at least one second protrusion, and in the plane of the projection, the second protrusion is located on a side of the second side edge of the pixel opening corresponding to the dimmer opening that is away from the center of the dimming opening.
PNG
media_image7.png
463
463
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, fig. 4 of Cho discloses wherein in the first direction, a length L2 of the second protrusion is smaller than a length L of the body portion.
Regarding claim 13, fig. 4 of Cho discloses wherein L2 > L/2.
Regarding claim 15, fig. 4 of Cho discloses wherein the second protrusion and the first protrusion are symmetrically arranged with respect to a center of the body portion.
Regarding claim 16, fig. 4 of Cho discloses wherein the light-emitting units comprise a plurality of first light-emitting units arranged in an array; in a second direction, body portions corresponding to adjacent two of the first light-emitting units are symmetrical with respect to a third symmetry axis (Z), wherein a first protrusion corresponding to one of the adjacent two of the first light-emitting units and a second protrusion corresponding to the other of the adjacent two of the first light-emitting units are symmetrical with respect to the third symmetry axis; the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
PNG
media_image8.png
782
660
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, fig. 3 of Cho discloses wherein the projection of each of the pixel openings on the substrate comprises a third side edge extending along a third direction intersecting the first direction; the projection of each of the dimmer openings on the substrate further comprises at least one third protrusion, and in the plane of the projection, the third protrusion is at least partially located on a side of the third side edge of the pixel opening corresponding to the dimmer opening that is away from the center of the dimmer opening.
Regarding claim 19, fig. 4 of Cho discloses wherein the projection of each of the pixel openings on the substrate comprises n side edges, the projection of each of the dimming openings on the substrate comprises n side edges, n is an even number, and in the plane of the projection, at least one of two adjacent side edges of the n side edges of the dimming opening is provided with the first protrusion.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
Regarding claim 6, fig. 4 of Cho discloses wherein in the plane of the projection, the first protrusion comprises a first edge parallel to the first side edge, but does not disclose of a minimum distance h.sub.1 between the first edge and the body portion satisfies 0<h.sub.1?1.5 ?m.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Cho comprising a minimum distance h.sub.1 between the first edge and the body portion satisfies 0<h.sub.1?1.5 ?m in order to meet applicant design.
Regarding claim 8, fig. 4 of Cho discloses wherein in the plane of the projection, the first protrusion comprises a second edge intersecting the first side edge, but does not disclose wherein at least one second edge of the second edges of the first protrusions of the dimmer openings makes an angle of less than 90? with a first side edge intersecting the at least one second edge.
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
As such it would have been obvious to form a structure of Cho comprising wherein at least one second edge of the second edges of the first protrusions of the dimmer openings makes an angle of less than 90? with a first side edge intersecting the at least one second edge in order to meet the structure.
Regarding claim 14, Cho does not disclose of wherein in the plane of the projection, the second protrusion comprises a third edge parallel to the second side edge, and a minimum distance h2 between the third edge and the body portion satisfies 0<h.sub.2?1.5 ?m.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Cho comprising wherein in the plane of the projection, the second protrusion comprises a third edge parallel to the second side edge, and a minimum distance h2 between the third edge and the body portion satisfies 0<h.sub.2?1.5 ?m in order to meet applicant design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
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, 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 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893