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
Amendment, received 2/9/2026, has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0107850 A1), hereafter referred to as Xu, in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0288118 A1), hereafter referred to as Lee.
As to claim 16, Xu discloses a display device (fig 1), comprising:
a display panel (fig 1) including a through-hole (O), an optical area (figs 28-29, area including CRD3, DAM1, CRD2 and CRD1) having a rough pattern (rough pattern in CRD3, DAM1, CRD2 and CRD1) including a mountain and a valley around the through-hole (fig 29, mountain/valley regions in CRD3 and CRD1), and a display area (AA) where a subpixel ([0053]) is positioned outside the optical area (CRD3, DAM1, CRD2 and CRD1); and
an optical electronic device ([0090]) positioned to at least partially overlap with the through-hole ([0090]), wherein the rough pattern includes:
an outer side rough pattern positioned adjacent to the through-hole (CRD1); and
an inner side rough pattern positioned adjacent to the display area (CRD3), outside the outer side rough pattern,
wherein the valley in the inner side rough pattern is deeper than the valley in the outer side rough pattern (valley in CRD3 is deeper than valley in CRD1),
wherein at least one inter-layer insulating film included in the mountain positioned in the inner side rough pattern is not included in the mountain positioned in the outer side rough pattern (fig 29, IT included in mountain in pattern CRD3 is not included in CRD1; [0214]).
Xu does not disclose an align mark positioned between the through-hole and the display area, and
wherein a metal pattern and the align mark are positioned on a same layer.
Nonetheless, Lee discloses a similar display device including an optical area and a display area wherein an align mark is positioned between the hole area of the optical area and the display area (fig 11, align mark AM between AA and CA), and
wherein a metal pattern and the align mark are positioned on a same layer (metal pattern HSL3 and align mark AM are positioned on a same layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the metal pattern and align mark of Lee in the display device of Xu since this will ensure that the modules are properly aligned and touch sensing capability is enacted.
As to claim 20, Xu in view of Lee disclose the display device of claim 16 (paragraphs above).
Xu further discloses wherein the display panel includes a substrate (fig 4, BS) and two or more inter-layer insulation films (102, 103) positioned on the substrate (BS) to cover different electrodes (CE1, GT), and
wherein the at least one inter-layer insulating film (IT) is at least one of the two or more inter-layer insulation films ([0214]) included in the mountain positioned in the inner side rough pattern (CRD3) but is not included in the mountain positioned in the outer side rough pattern (CRD1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the display panel further includes an align mark positioned between the through-hole and the display area, and wherein the metal pattern and the align mark are positioned on a same layer, as well as, wherein the metal pattern positioned in a valley of the rough pattern, as recited in claims 1 and 21; or wherein the metal pattern is positioned on a bottom surface of the valley positioned in the outer side rough pattern, as recited in claim 17 and dependent claim 19. Dependent claims 2-13 are allowable because of their dependence from claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 and 20 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.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US2022/0158129A1; US2023/0422588A1; US2022/0199946A1; US 2024/0107850A1; US2020/0313102A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN M CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3830. The examiner can normally be reached on MWFS: 7:30-6pm Thurs 1-2pm.
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, Purvis, Sue can be reached at (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.
/SHAUN M CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 2/18/2026