DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 11/12/2025.
Currently, claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending in the application. Currently, claim 12 is withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 have been considered. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the limitations of the amended claims. This argument is not found persuasive because the cited prior art does teach the limitations of the amended claims (see prior art rejections below).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/06/2025 and 11/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over JEON (US Pub. No. 2021/0376009) in view of LIUS (US Pub. No. 2022/0020778).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jeon teaches a display device (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a display panel (Figs. 1 & 2, 1, ¶ [0053]) including a plurality of light emitting areas (Fig. 2, Pm + Pa1 + Pa2, ¶ [0071]);
a first optical electronic device (Fig. 2, COMP1, ¶ [0088]) located under the display panel;
a second optical electronic device (Fig. 2, COMP2, ¶ [0090]) located under the display panel,
wherein a first optical area (Figs. 2 & 4, CA1, ¶ [0114]) of the display panel overlapping the first optical electronic device comprises a plurality of first light transmission areas (Fig. 4, TA1, ¶ [0115]) in addition to the plurality of light emitting areas,
wherein a second optical area (Figs. 2 & 4, CA2, ¶ [0116]) of the display panel overlapping the second optical electronic device comprises a plurality of second light transmission areas (Fig. 4, TA2, ¶ [0116]) in addition to the plurality of light emitting areas,
wherein a third optical area (Fig. 2 & 4, DA, ¶ [0114]) of the display panel not overlapping the first and second optical electronic devices includes the plurality of light emitting areas without including the first and second light transmission areas.
However, Jeon does not explicitly teach that the first light transmission areas have a different shape or size than the second light transmission areas so a light transmittance of incident light through the first light transmission areas is different than a light transmittance of incident light through the second transmission areas and wherein the second light transmission areas having the same shape but different sizes are disposed between adjacent subpixels comprising pixels of the display panel, such that the second light transmission areas having different sizes are alternately arranged along a same row line between the adjacent subpixels.
However, Lius is a pertinent art that teaches that the first light transmission areas (Fig. 2, TR2 in R2, ¶ [0027]) have a different shape or size than the second light transmission areas (Fig. 2, differently sized TR3 in R3, ¶ [0027]) so a light transmittance of incident light through the first light transmission areas is different than a light transmittance of incident light through the second transmission areas (It would be obvious that the light transmittance through the differently sized TR3 would be different, also see ¶ [0027]) and wherein the second light transmission areas having the same shape but different sizes are disposed between adjacent subpixels (Fig. 2, different sized TR3 are between vertically adjacent pixels PX3, ¶ [0026]) comprising pixels of the display panel, such that the second light transmission areas having different sizes are alternately arranged along a same row line (Differently sized TR3 in Fig. 2 are alternately arranged in a vertical direction in Fig. 2. The vertical direction of Fig. 2 can be considered to be a row line depending on device orientation) between the adjacent subpixels (The Examiner notes that it would be obvious that the alternating pattern of differently sized TR3 and PX3 would continue in a vertical direction in a similar manner to the embodiment of Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon’s light transmission area’s relative size and arrangement according to the teaching of Lius (Fig. 2) in order to improve the function of the optical elements depending on the desired light transmittance (Lius ¶¶ [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1.
However, Jeon modified by Lius does not explicitly teach that an area or a size of each of the first light transmission areas is greater than an area or a size of each of the second transmission areas.
However, Lius recognizes that the area of a transparent area impacts the pixel density, which impacts the transmittance of an area (Lius ¶ [0033]). Lius further recognizes the need to improve the function of optical elements depends on transmittance (Lius ¶¶ [0028] & [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the relative sizes of TR2 and TR3 depending on the desired transmittance and pixel density of the respective display area.
Regarding claim 3, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1 and Jeon teaches that at least one of the first light transmission areas (Figs. 4 & 6, TA1, ¶ [0115]) has an area or a size of a unit pixel (Figs. 4 & 6, TG1, ¶ [0149]).
Regarding claim 4, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 3.
However, Jeon modified by Lius does not explicitly teach that a width of the at least one of the first light transmission areas is 130 to 140 µm.
However, Lius recognizes that the area of a transparent area impacts the pixel density, which impacts the transmittance of an area (Lius ¶ [0033]). Lius further recognizes the need to improve the function of optical elements depends on transmittance (Lius ¶¶ [0028] & [0033]). It would be obvious that width impacts the area. Therefore, the width of a transparent area is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 4 limitations in order to achieve the desired balance between the area of a transparent area’s impact on pixel density and transmittance, and the need for improving optical device function as taught by Lius. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 3, and Jeon teaches that the at least one of the first light transmission areas (Fig. 4, TA1, ¶ [0115]) has a circular, elliptical, or polygonal shape (Fig. 4, TA1 has a polygonal shape).
Regarding claim 10, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Lius teaches that the second light transmission areas (Fig. 2, TR3, ¶ [0033]) are disposed between the light emitting areas (Fig. 2, area of LE3, ¶ [0027]) without overlapping the light emitting areas in the second optical area (Fig. 7, R3, ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Jeon teaches that the third optical area (Fig. 2 & 4, DA, ¶ [0114]) is additionally disposed between the first optical area (Figs. 2 & 4, CA1, ¶ [0114]) and the second optical area (Figs. 2 & 4, CA2, ¶ [0116]).
Regarding claim 13, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Jeon teaches that the first optical electronic device (Fig. 2, COMP1, ¶ [0088] teaches that COMP1 can be a camera) is a camera, and the second optical electronic device is a sensor (Fig. 2, COMP2, ¶¶ [0088] & [0090] teaches that COMP2 can be a sensor).
Regarding claim 14, Jeon modified Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Lius teaches that a number of subpixels per unit area in the first optical area (Fig. 2, R2, ¶ [0026]) is less than a number of subpixels per unit area in the third optical area (Fig. 2, R1, ¶¶ [0026]-[0029]), and a number of subpixels per unit area in the second optical area (Fig. 2, R3, ¶ [0033]) is greater than or equal to the number of subpixels per unit area in the first optical area (¶¶ [0026]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Jeon teaches that the display panel further comprises a cathode electrode (Fig. 9, 223, ¶ [0192]) disposed in respective light emitting areas included in the third optical area (Fig. 9, DA, ¶ [0191]) and the first optical area (Fig. 9, CA1, ¶ [0191]), and not disposed in the first light transmission areas (Fig. 9, 223H, ¶ [0200]).
Regarding claim 17, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Jeon teaches that the first light transmission areas (Fig. 4, TA1, ¶ [0115]) included in the first optical area (Figs. 2 & 4, CA1, ¶ [0114]) are arranged in a diagonal direction (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Lius teaches that the second light transmission areas (Fig. 2, TR3, ¶ [0026]) included in the second optical area (Fig. 2, R3, ¶ [0025]) are arranged in a horizontal direction (Fig. 2), and no light emitting area (Fig. 2, area of LE3, ¶ [0027]) is disposed between two second light transmission areas adjacent to each other in the horizontal direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Jeon modified by Lius teaches The display device according to claim 1, and Lius teaches that the third optical area (Fig. 7, R1, ¶¶ [0026]-[0029] teaches that pixel density of pixels PX1 in area R1 is greater than the pixel density of pixels PX3 in R3 and the pixel density of pixels PX2 in R2. Therefore, Jeon modified by Lius would fulfill this limitation) includes more light emitting areas per square inch than light emitting areas included in the first or second optical areas.
Regarding claim 20, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1.
However, Jeon modified by Lius does not explicitly teach that the light transmittance of incident light through the first light transmission areas is greater than the light transmittance of incident light through the second transmission areas.
However, Lius recognizes that the area of a transparent area impacts the pixel density, which impacts the transmittance of an area (Lius ¶ [0033]). Lius further recognizes the need to improve the function of optical elements depends on transmittance (Lius ¶¶ [0028] & [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the relative transmittances of the areas R2 and R3 by adjusting their respective pixel density depending on the desired transmittance of the optical elements.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over JEON (US Pub. No. 2021/0376009) in view of LIUS (US Pub. No. 2022/0020778) and further in view of WANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0065625).
Regarding claim 6, Jeon modified by Lius teaches the display device according to claim 1.
However, Jeon modified by Lius does not explicitly teach that at least one of the second light transmission areas has an area or a size of a unit subpixel.
However, Wang is a pertinent art that teaches at least one of the second light transmission areas (Fig. 1E, P02, ¶ [0210]) has an area or a size of a unit subpixel (Fig. 1E, 2, ¶ [0210]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon modified by Lius’s second light transmission area’s size to be the same as that of a unit sub-pixel according to the teaching of Wang (Fig. 1E) in order to simplify manufacturing (Wang ¶ [0097]).
Regarding claim 7, Jeon modified by Lius modified by Wang teaches the display device according to claim 6.
However, Jeon modified by Lius modified by Wang does not explicitly teach that a width of the at least one of the second light transmission areas is 40 to 50 µm.
However, Lius recognizes that the area of a transparent area impacts the pixel density, which impacts the transmittance of an area (Lius ¶ [0033]). Lius further recognizes the need to improve the function of optical elements depends on transmittance (Lius ¶¶ [0028] & [0033]). It would be obvious that width impacts the area. Therefore, the width of a transparent area is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 7 limitations in order to achieve the desired balance between the area of a transparent area’s impact on pixel density and transmittance, and the need for improving optical device function as taught by Lius. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Jeon modified by Lius modified by Wang teaches the display device according to claim 6, and Lius teaches that the at least one of the second light transmission areas (Fig. 2, TR3, ¶ [0033]) has a circular, elliptical, or polygonal shape (Fig. 3, TR3 has a polygonal shape).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813