1DETAILED 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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0157094) hereinafter “Li” in view of Tada et al. (US 2021/0223912) hereinafter “Tada”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 2 of Li teaches a display device comprising: a display panel comprising first color light emitting areas (Items 141), second color light emitting areas (Items 142), and third color light emitting areas (Items 143) and a non-light-emitting area between the first color light emitting areas, the second color light emitting areas, and the third color light emitting areas; and an input sensor comprising a sensing electrode comprising a conductive line (Item 210) overlapping the non-light-emitting area and providing a first opening corresponding to each of the first color light emitting areas, a second opening corresponding to each of the second light emitting areas and a third opening corresponding to each of the third color light emitting areas, wherein an area of the first opening, an area of the second opening and an area of the third opening are different from each other, wherein a first-first color light emitting area among the first color light emitting areas is positioned between a first-second color light emitting area among the second color light emitting areas and a third-second color light emitting areas among the second color light emitting areas in a first direction and a first-third color light emitting area among the third color light emitting areas is positioned between a second-second color light emitting area among the second color light emitting areas and a fourth-second color light emitting area among the second color light emitting areas in the first direction (See Picture 8 below); within the first direction, the first-second color light emitting area and the second -second color light emitting area are arranged on a same side from the first-first color light emitting area and the first-third color light emitting area, respectively.
Li does not teach a distance between the third line area and the first-first light emitting area is greater than a distance between the first line area and the first-first color light emitting area and a distance between the fourth line area and the first-third color light emitting area is greater than the distance between the second line area and the first-third color light emitting area nor a distance between the first line area and the first-second color light emitting area is greater than the distance between the first line area and the first-first color light emitting area and a distance between the second line area and the second-second color light emitting area is greater than a distance between the second line area and the first-third color light emitting area.
However, Tada teaches where the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode comprising a conductive line is a result effective variable (Paragraphs 0032 and 0034 where the predetermined distances between sub-pixels and a sensing electrode is known to help suppress a change in color ratio as seen in an oblique direction with respect to a display plane). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode such that a distance between the third line area and the first-first light emitting area is greater than a distance between the first line area and the first-first color light emitting area and a distance between the fourth line area and the first-third color light emitting area is greater than the distance between the second line area and the first-third color light emitting area, and a distance between the first line area and the first-second color light emitting area is greater than the distance between the first line area and the first-first color light emitting area and a distance between the second line area and the second-second color light emitting area is greater than a distance between the second line area and the first-third color light emitting area because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 8 (Labeled version of Li Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 2 of Li further teaches where each of the first line area and the second line area extends in a second direction crossing the first direction, and the first line area and the second line area have a same width.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li and Tada teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Li does not teach the distance between the third line area and the first-first color light emitting area is smaller than the distance between the first line area and the first-second color light emitting area.
However, Tada teaches where the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode comprising a conductive line is a result effective variable (Paragraphs 0032 and 0034 where the predetermined distances between sub-pixels and a sensing electrode is known to help suppress a change in color ratio as seen in an oblique direction with respect to a display plane). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode such that a distance between the third line area and the first-first color light emitting area is smaller than the distance between the first line area and the first-second color light emitting area because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li and Tada teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Li does not teach a distance between the third line area and the third-second color light emitting area is greater than the distance between the third line area and the first-first color light emitting area.
However, Tada teaches where the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode comprising a conductive line is a result effective variable (Paragraphs 0032 and 0034 where the predetermined distances between sub-pixels and a sensing electrode is known to help suppress a change in color ratio as seen in an oblique direction with respect to a display plane). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode such that a distance between the third line area and the third-second color light emitting area is greater than a distance between the third line area and the first-first color light emitting area because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li and Tada teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Li does not teach where the distance between the first line area and the first-second color light emitting area is equal to or greater than the distance between the third line area and the third-second color light emitting area.
However, Tada teaches where the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode comprising a conductive line is a result effective variable (Paragraphs 0032 and 0034 where the predetermined distances between sub-pixels and a sensing electrode is known to help suppress a change in color ratio as seen in an oblique direction with respect to a display plane). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode such that the distance between the first line area and the first-second color light emitting area is equal to or greater than the distance between the third line area and the third-second color light emitting area because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li and Tada teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Li does not teach the distance between the fourth line area and the first-third color light emitting area is smaller than a distance between the fourth line area and the fourth-second color light emitting area.
However, Tada teaches where the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode comprising a conductive line is a result effective variable (Paragraphs 0032 and 0034 where the predetermined distances between sub-pixels and a sensing electrode is known to help suppress a change in color ratio as seen in an oblique direction with respect to a display plane). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode such that the distance between the fourth line area and the first-third color light emitting area is smaller than a distance between the fourth line area and the fourth-second color light emitting area because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 2 of Li further teaches where each of the second line area and the third line area extends in a second direction crossing the first direction, and a line width of the second line area is equal to a line width of the third line area.
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 2 of Li further teaches where the distance between the second line area and the first-third color light emitting area is equal to the distance between the fourth line area and the first-third color light emitting area.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Li and Tada teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Li does not teach a distance between the fourth line area and the fourth-second color light emitting area is greater than the distance between the fourth line area and the first-third color light emitting area, and the distance between the second line and the second-second color light emitting area is equal to or greater than the distance between the fourth line area and the fourth-second color light emitting area.
However, Tada teaches where the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode comprising a conductive line is a result effective variable (Paragraphs 0032 and 0034 where the predetermined distances between sub-pixels and a sensing electrode is known to help suppress a change in color ratio as seen in an oblique direction with respect to a display plane). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between a sub-pixel and a sensing electrode such that a distance between the fourth line area and the fourth-second color light emitting area is greater than the distance between the fourth line area and the first-third color light emitting area, and the distance between the second line and the second-second color light emitting area is equal to or greater than the distance between the fourth line area and the fourth-second color light emitting area because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 2 of Li further teaches where each of the first-first color light emitting area (See Picture 8 above), the first-second color light emitting area (See Picture 8 above), the second-second color light emitting area (See Picture 8 above), and the first-third color light emitting area (See Picture 8 above), comprises a first edge, a second edge facing the first edge in the first direction, a third edge, and a fourth edge facing the third edge in a second direction crossing the first direction.
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 2 of Li further teaches where the first-second color light emitting area extends in the first direction, and the second-second color light emitting area extends in the second direction.
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 2 of Li further teaches each of the first line area and the second line area extends in a second direction crossing the first direction (See Picture 8 above), the first color light emitting areas (Items 141) and the third color light emitting areas (Items 142) define a first light emitting row, the second color light emitting areas (Items 143) define a second light emitting row, and the first color light emitting areas are alternately arranged with the third color light emitting areas in the first light emitting row along a third direction crossing the first direction and the second direction.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0157094) hereinafter “Li” in view of Tada et al. (US 2021/0223912) hereinafter “Tada” and in further view of Lee (US 2017/0097703) hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li and Tada teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Li further teaches where each of the first line area and the third line area extends in a second direction crossing the first direction (See Picture 8 above).
Li does not teach where the first line area has a line width greater than a line width of the third line area.
However, Lee teaches where the width of a line area is a result effective variable (Paragraph 0072 where the width of a sensing line is inversely proportional to the resistance of the sensing line). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize a width of the first line area and the third line area such that the first line area has a line width greater than a line width of the third line area because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Alternatively, Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0157094) hereinafter “Li” in view of Lee (US 2017/0097703) hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 2 of Li teaches a display device comprising: a display panel comprising first color light emitting areas (Items 141), second color light emitting areas (Items 142), and third color light emitting areas (Items 143) and a non-light-emitting area between the first color light emitting areas, the second color light emitting areas, and the third color light emitting areas; and an input sensor comprising a sensing electrode comprising a conductive line (Item 210) overlapping the non-light-emitting area and on the display panel, wherein a first-first color light emitting area among the first color light emitting areas is positioned between a first-second color light emitting area among the second color light emitting areas and a third-second color light emitting area among the second color light emitting areas in a first direction, a first-third color light emitting area among the third color light emitting areas is positioned between a second-second color light emitting area among the second color light areas and a fourth-second color light emitting area among the second color light emitting areas in the first direction, the conductive line comprises a first line area between the first-first color light emitting area and the first-second color light emitting area, a second line area between the second-second color light emitting area and the first-third color light emitting area, a third line area between the first-first color light emitting area and the third-second color light emitting area, and a fourth line area between the first-third color light emitting area and the fourth-second color light emitting area, and, within the first direction, the first-second color light emitting area and the second-second color light emitting area are arranged on a same side from the first-first color light emitting area and the first-third color light emitting area, respectively (See Picture 8 above).
Li does not teach the first line area has a line width greater than a line width of each of the second line area and the third line area, the second line area has a line width substantially the same as a line width of the fourth line area.
However, Lee teaches where the width of a sensing electrode is a result effective variable (Paragraphs 0072 where a line width of a sensing electrode is known to be inversely proportional to a wiring width). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the line width of the first, second, third and fourth line areas such that the first line area has a line width greater than a line width of each of the second line area and the third line area, the second line area has a line width substantially the same as a line width of the fourth line area because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Li and Lee teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as started above.
Li further teaches where the conductive line further comprises a fifth line area (See Picture 12 below) extending from the first line area in the first direction and adjacent to the first-first color light emitting area (See Picture 12 below).
Li does not teach where the line width of the first line area is greater than a line width of the fifth line area.
However, Lee teaches where the width of a sensing electrode is a result effective variable (Paragraphs 0072 where a line width of a sensing electrode is known to be inversely proportional to a wiring width). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the line width of the first and fifth line areas such that the line width of the first line area is greater than a line width of the fifth line area because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Picture 12 (Labeled version of Li Fig. 2)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 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:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have a spherical coordinate system defined therein, wherein a white image displayed in the display panel is measured as a white image shifted to a source light of the second color light emitting areas from a first point (r1,01,Ǿ1) of the spherical coordinate system, the first point (r1,01, Ǿ 1) is on an extension line of the first-first color light emitting area and the first-second color light emitting area in the first direction, and the first-first color light emitting area is closer to the first point (r1,01, Ǿ 1) than the first-second color light emitting area.
Claims 16 and 17 are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, filed 01/20/2026, with regard to the rejections relying on the Jeong reference, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claim 1 and respective dependent claims relying on the Jeong reference have been withdrawn.
The Examiner notes that Claims 1 and 19 were also previously rejected under 35 USC 103 relying on the Li reference along with other secondary references. While the Applicant’s seem to discuss the Jeong reference at length in their remarks, the remarks do not seem to contain any arguments directed to the usage of the Li reference besides a general statement that “none of the other cited references appear to cure the deficiencies of Jeong to reject claims 1 and 19 and there is no apparent reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the disclosures of the cites references to arrive at the embodiments of claim 1 and 19”. Thus, the Examiner has no specific rebuttal remarks with respect to the reliance on the Li reference. Further, the Examiner believes that the previous rejections relying on the Li reference are still relevant and read on the Applicant’s amended claims. Thus, the Examiner maintains the reliance on Li and the previously relied upon secondary references to read on the currently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891