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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0351114) of record, in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0209729) of record, in view of Zhao (CN 111063717, machine-translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 8 of Lee discloses a display panel having a plurality of layers and extending in a first portion (103/105) and a second portion (101) of at least one lateral aspect defined by a lateral axis, the panel adapted to accept at least one electromagnetic (EM) signal (optical) through the second portion [0059], at an angle relative to the layers, for exchange with at least one under-display component (102), the panel comprising at least one closed coating (503/505) of a deposited material disposed on an exposed layer surface of the panel in the first portion; wherein the second portion is substantially devoid of a closed coating of the deposited material and is substantially devoid of any emissive region.
Lee is silent with respect to “at least one under-display component comprising at least one of: an under-display camera and a transmitter” and “a blind hole region, formed within the second portion, being associated with the at least one under-display component and having a cross-sectional dimension that is at least a cross- sectional dimension of the associated under-display component”.
FIG. 2 of Chen discloses a similar display panel, wherein at least one under-display component comprising at least one of: an under-display camera (224) and a transmitter (226).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving through-display optical reception efficiency ([0037] of Chen).
Lee as modified by Chen is silent with respect to “a blind hole region, formed within the second portion, being associated with the at least one under-display component and having a cross-sectional dimension that is at least a cross- sectional dimension of the associated under-display component”.
FIG. 2 of Zhao discloses a similar display panel, comprising a blind hole region (comprising blind hole 116), formed within the second portion, being associated with the at least one under-display component (115) and having a cross-sectional dimension that is at least a cross-sectional dimension of the associated under-display component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Zhao. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving through-display optical reception efficiency ([0037] of Zhao).
Regarding Claim 2
FIG. 8 of Lee discloses the at least one under-display component comprises at least one of: a receiver adapted to receive; and a transmitter adapted to emit; the at least one EM signal passing through the panel beyond the user device [0036].
Regarding Claim 20
FIG. 8 of Lee discloses a display panel having a plurality of layers and extending in a first portion (103/105) and a second portion (101) of at least one lateral aspect defined by a lateral axis, the panel adapted to accept at least one electromagnetic (EM) signal through the second portion of the panel at an angle relative to the layers [0059], wherein the panel comprises at least one closed coating (503/505) of a deposited material disposed on an exposed layer surface of the panel in the first portion; wherein the second portion is substantially devoid of a closed coating of the deposited material, wherein the second portion is substantially devoid of a closed coating of the deposited coating and is substantially devoid of any emissive region.
Lee is silent with respect to “the under-display component comprising at least one of: an under-display camera and a transmitter”; “a blind hole region, formed within the second portion, being associated with the at least one under-display component and having a cross-sectional dimension that is at least a cross-sectional dimension of the associated under-display component”.
FIG. 2 of Chen discloses a similar display panel, wherein at least one under-display component comprising at least one of: an under-display camera (224) and a transmitter (226).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving through-display optical reception efficiency ([0037] of Chen).
Lee as modified by Chen is silent with respect to “a blind hole region, formed within the second portion, being associated with the at least one under-display component and having a cross-sectional dimension that is at least a cross- sectional dimension of the associated under-display component”.
FIG. 2 of Zhao discloses a similar display panel, comprising a blind hole region (comprising blind hole 116), formed within the second portion, being associated with the at least one under-display component (115) and having a cross-sectional dimension that is at least a cross-sectional dimension of the associated under-display component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Zhao. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving through-display optical reception efficiency ([0037] of Zhao).
Claims 3 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Zhao, in view of Tischler (CN 105580144, machine-translation provided).
Regarding Claim 3
FIG. 8 of Lee discloses a display panel having a plurality of layers and extending in a first portion (103/105) and a second portion (101) of at least one lateral aspect defined by a lateral axis, the panel adapted to accept at least one electromagnetic (EM) signal through the second portion, at an angle relative to the layers, for exchange of the at least one EM signal with at least one under-display component, the display panel comprising at least one closed coating (703/705) of a deposited material disposed on an exposed layer surface of the panel in the first portion; wherein the entirety of the second portion is substantially devoid of a closed coating of the deposited material.
Lee is silent with respect to “a blind hole region in the second portion and adapted to accept at least one electromagnetic (EM) signal through the blind hole region of the second portion” and “particle structures comprised of the deposited material, each of the particle structures having a characteristic size that is no more than a maximum threshold size of about 200 nm”.
FIG. 2 of Zhao discloses a similar display panel, comprising a blind hole region (dotted square comprising blind holes 116 and the one formed in 109 to expose 112) in the second portion and adapted to accept at least one electromagnetic (EM) signal through the blind hole region of the second portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Zhao. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving through-display optical reception efficiency ([0037] of Zhao).
Lee as modified by Zhao is silent with respect to “particle structures comprised of the deposited material, each of the particle structures having a characteristic size that is no more than a maximum threshold size of about 200 nm”.
FIG. 65 of Tischler discloses a similar display panel, wherein the entirety of the second portion (210) is substantially devoid of a closed coating of the deposited material and comprises particle structures (6510) comprised of the deposited material, each of the particle structures having a characteristic size that is no more than a maximum threshold size of about 200 nm (for example, 100 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Tischler. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of forming a reflective layer ([0023] of Tischler).
Regarding Claim 10
FIG. 8 of Lee discloses the first portion comprises at least one emissive region for emitting an EM signal at an angle relative to the layers [0059].
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen’104 (CN 111261104, machine-translation provided), in view of Cho (KR 20120067644, machine-translation provided).
Regarding Claim 3
FIG. 1 of Chen’104 discloses a display panel having a plurality of layers and extending in a first portion (surrounding 97) and a second portion (97) of at least one lateral aspect defined by a lateral axis, the panel adapted to accept at least one electromagnetic (EM) signal through the second portion, at an angle relative to the layers, for exchange with at least one under-display component (98) comprising at least one of: an under-display camera and a transmitter (camera), the panel comprising at least one closed coating of a deposited material disposed on an exposed layer surface of the panel in the first portion; and a blind hole region (97), formed within the second portion, being associated with the at least one under-display component and having a cross-sectional dimension that is at least a cross- sectional dimension of the associated under-display component, wherein the second portion is substantially devoid of a closed coating (92) of the deposited material.
Lee is silent with respect to “particle structures comprised of the deposited material, each of the particle structures having a characteristic size that is no more than a maximum threshold size of about 200 nm”.
FIG. 4 of Cho discloses a similar display panel, wherein the entirety of the second portion (DA) is substantially devoid of a closed coating of the deposited material and comprises particle structures (152) comprised of the deposited material, each of the particle structures having a characteristic size that is no more than a maximum threshold size of about 200 nm (for example, 100 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen’104, as taught by Cho. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen’104 in the above manner for purpose of reducing light loss and improving light efficiency (Abstract of Cho).
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen’104 (CN 111261104, machine-translation provided), in view of Kang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0194634).
Regarding Claim 3
FIG. 1 of Chen’104 discloses a display panel having a plurality of layers and extending in a first portion (surrounding 97) and a second portion (97) of at least one lateral aspect defined by a lateral axis, the panel adapted to accept at least one electromagnetic (EM) signal through the second portion, at an angle relative to the layers, for exchange with at least one under-display component (98) comprising at least one of: an under-display camera and a transmitter (camera), the panel comprising at least one closed coating of a deposited material disposed on an exposed layer surface of the panel in the first portion; and a blind hole region (97), formed within the second portion, being associated with the at least one under-display component and having a cross-sectional dimension that is at least a cross- sectional dimension of the associated under-display component, wherein the second portion is substantially devoid of a closed coating (92) of the deposited material.
Lee is silent with respect to “particle structures comprised of the deposited material, each of the particle structures having a characteristic size that is no more than a maximum threshold size of about 200 nm”.
FIG. 2 of Kang discloses a similar display panel, wherein the entirety of the second portion (TW) is substantially devoid of a closed coating of the deposited material and comprises particle structures (152) comprised of the deposited material, each of the particle structures having a characteristic size that is no more than a maximum threshold size of about 200 nm [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen’104, as taught by Kang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen’104 in the above manner for purpose of scattering light incident ([0009] of Kang).
Claims 4, 7-9, 11-14 and 16-19 rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Zhao and Tischler, in view of Helander (WO 2018100559) of record.
Regarding Claim 4
Lee as modified by Zhao and Tischler discloses Claim 3.
Lee as modified by Zhao and Tischler s silent with respect to “a nucleation-inhibiting coating (NIC) on the exposed layer surface of the panel in the second portion, wherein an initial sticking probability for depositing the deposited material onto a surface of the NIC in the first portion is substantially less than at least one of: 0.3, and the initial sticking probability for depositing the deposited material onto the exposed layer surface”.
FIG. 1 of Helander discloses a similar display panel, comprising a nucleation-inhibiting coating (NIC) on the exposed layer surface of the panel in the second portion, [0018] wherein an initial sticking probability for depositing the deposited material onto a surface of the NIC in the first portion is substantially less than at least one of: 0.3, and the initial sticking probability for depositing the deposited material onto the exposed layer surface [0140].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Helander. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of ([0023] of Helander).
Regarding Claim 7
FIG. 11 of Helander discloses a low-index coating disposed on the exposed layer surface of the panel in the second portion and a high-index medium (1061) extending along a surface of the low-index coating, wherein a refractive index of the low-index coating is less than a refractive index of the high-index medium [0093].
Regarding Claim 8
FIG. 11 of Helander discloses the deposited material comprises at least one of silver (Ag) and ytterbium (Yb) [0010].
Regarding Claim 9
Helander discloses an average film thickness of the at least one closed coating is between about 5-80 nm [0078].
Regarding Claim 11
FIG. 11 of Helander discloses a substrate (1010); and at least one semiconducting layer (1048) disposed thereon; and wherein: each emissive region comprises a first electrode (1044) and a second electrode (1075), the first electrode is disposed between the substrate and the at least one semiconducting layer, and the at least one semiconducting layer is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode.
Regarding Claim 12
FIG. 11 of Helander discloses the second electrode comprises the at least one closed coating (1071) of the deposited material.
Regarding Claim 13
FIG. 11 of Helander discloses the exposed layer surface of the panel is an exposed layer surface of the at least one semiconducting layer.
Regarding Claim 14
FIG. 11 of Helander discloses the substrate extends substantially continuously across both the first portion and the second portion.
Regarding Claim 16
FIG. 9 of Helander discloses the first portion comprises a plurality of emissive regions (923).
Regarding Claim 17
FIG. 9 of Helander discloses the first portion comprises at least one non-emissive region between adjacent emissive regions.
Regarding Claim 18
FIG. 9 of Helander discloses the second portion (931) is substantially devoid of any emissive regions.
Regarding Claim 19
FIG. 11 of Helander discloses at least one covering layer (1110) disposed on an exposed layer surface of the at least one closed coating in the first portion and on an exposed layer surface of the panel in the second portion.
Claims 4 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Zhao and Tischler, in view of Chang (WO 2017072678) of record.
Regarding Claim 4
Lee as modified by Zhao and Tischler discloses Claim 3.
Lee as modified by Zhao and Tischler is silent with respect to “a nucleation-inhibiting coating (NIC) on the exposed layer surface of the panel in the second portion, wherein an initial sticking probability for depositing the deposited material onto a surface of the NIC in the first portion is substantially less than at least one of: 0.3, and the initial sticking probability for depositing the deposited material onto the exposed layer surface”.
FIG. 1 of Chang discloses a similar display panel, comprising a nucleation-inhibiting coating (NIC) (140) on the exposed layer surface of the panel in the second portion, wherein an initial sticking probability for depositing the deposited material onto a surface of the NIC in the first portion is substantially less than at least one of: 0.3, and the initial sticking probability for depositing the deposited material onto the exposed layer surface [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Chang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of preventing the formation of crystals or growth of crystals.
Regarding Claim 6
FIG. 8 of Lee discloses the second portion comprises a UVA-absorbing layer (700) [0068].
Claims 10, 11, 14 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Zhao and Tischler in view of Wang (WO 2017100944) of record.
Regarding Claim 10
Lee as modified by Zhao and Tischler discloses Claim 3.
Lee as modified by Zhao and Tischler is silent with respect to “the first portion comprises at least one emissive region for emitting an EM signal at an angle relative to the layers”.
FIG. 12 of Wang discloses a similar display panel, wherein the first portion comprises at least one emissive region for emitting an EM signal at an angle relative to the layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Wang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of forming an AMOLED device ([0142] of Wang).
Regarding Claim 11
FIG. 12 of Wang discloses a substrate (1110); and at least one semiconducting layer (1148) disposed thereon; and wherein: each emissive region comprises a first electrode (1144) and a second electrode (1150), the first electrode is disposed between the substrate and the at least one semiconducting layer, and the at least one semiconducting layer is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode.
Regarding Claim 14
FIG. 12 of Wang discloses the substrate extends substantially continuously across both the first portion and the second portion.
Regarding Claim 15
FIG. 12 of Wang discloses the at least one semiconducting layer (1148) extends substantially continuously across both the first portion and the second portion.
Pertinent Art
Pertinent art includes Jones (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0220844), Chang (WO 2018198052), Chang (WO 2017072678), Helander (WO 2018100559), Hu (WO 2020/232692), Zhao (CN 110491910), Chen (CN 111261104) and Yu (CN 110676296).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. 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.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897