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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 01/14/26 has been acknowledged.
Applicant amended a few paragraphs of the specification and submitted a replacement sheet with Fig. 9 to overcome some objections to the specification and objections to the drawings presented by Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/22/25.
Applicant cancelled Claim 5 and incorporated its allowable subject matter into independent Claims 1 and 20, where Claim 1 incorporated additional amended limitations. Applicant further amended Claims 2-4, 7-11, 14-15, 17, and 19.
Status of Claims
Claims 12 and 13 were earlier withdrawn from consideration as belonging to an invention (species) not chosen for examination. These claims could be rejoined with Claim 1 on a stage of allowance of the application.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 14-20 are examined on merits herein,
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Amended Claim 17 has a few new limitations. Lines 17-19 of the claim recite: “all of both the corresponding first electrode and the corresponding emitting layer of at least one of the plurality of light emitting devices and the at least one connection pattern are located within holes of the at least two insulating layers”, while lines 11-12 recite: “at least two insulating layers disposed between the at least one connection pattern and the at least one transistor”. The specification does not support the recitation of lines 17-19, since it does not teach any light emitting device disposed in an insulating layer that is disposed between a connection pattern and a transistor – all connection patterns of the current application are disposed under light emitting devices.
Amended Claim 19 recites: “the first optical area includes light emitting areas and first transmission areas, and the first transmission areas do not include a material layer having electrical conductive characteristics”, which is not supported by the specification of the application, including drawings, explicitly showing a conductive pattern and all electrodes of a light-emitting device in a transmission area TA1(2) (see Figs. 6, 7, etc.). If Applicant meant to claim (based on Fig. 4 and corresponding paragraphs of the application) that a transmitting area TA1 (or TA2) has regions that do not include conductive layers, this shall be better clarified in the claim.
The amendment filed 01/14/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Claim 17 has a few new limitations. Lines 17-19 of the claim recite: “all of both the corresponding first electrode and the corresponding emitting layer of at least one of the plurality of light emitting devices and the at least one connection pattern are located within holes of the at least two insulating layers”, while lines 11-12 recite: “at least two insulating layers disposed between the at least one connection pattern and the at least one transistor”. A combination of the recitations can be viewed as a new matter, since the specification does not teach “the at least one connection pattern” disposed within holes of two insulating layers that are located under this connection pattern – such as between the at least one connection pattern and the at least one transistor. In addition, the current application does not teach any light emitting device disposed in an insulating layer that is disposed between a connection pattern and a transistor – all connection patterns of the current application are disposed under light emitting devices.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 of Claim 11 recites: “a third connection pattern disposed on the same layer as the anode”. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to: “a third connection pattern disposed on a same layer as the anode”, since a layer on which the anode is disposed was not cited earlier;
lines 6-7 of Claim 11 recite: “light of a same color among the plurality of anodes of the plurality of light emitting devices”. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to: “light of a same color among a plurality of anodes of the plurality of light emitting devices”, since there was not recitation of: “a plurality of anodes” – in Claim 11 earlier, as well as in Claims 1, 2, and 6, on which Claim 11 depends;
lines 8-10 of Claim 11 recite: “the third connection pattern is electrically connected to at least one transistor disposed in the bezel area through at least one of the at least one first connection pattern and second the at least one connection pattern”. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to: “the third connection pattern is electrically connected to at least one transistor disposed in the bezel area through at least one of the at least one first connection pattern or the at least one second connection pattern”, based on a citation of the second connection pattern by Claim 2, on which Claim 11 depends;
lines 15-16 of Claim 17 recite: “electrically connected to the at least one transistor through the connection pattern”. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to: “electrically connected to the at least one transistor through the at least one connection pattern”, since the claim earlier recites: “at last one connection pattern”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re Claim 17: Claim 17 has a few new limitations. Lines 17-19 of the claim recite: “all of both the corresponding first electrode and the corresponding emitting layer of at least one of the plurality of light emitting devices and the at least one connection pattern are located within holes of the at least two insulating layers”, while lines 11-12 recite: “at least two insulating layers disposed between the at least one connection pattern and the at least one transistor”. A combination of the recitations teaches that at least a portion of a light emitting device is disposed in an insulating layer that is disposed between a connection pattern and a transistor, which is not taught by the originally filed application that teaches all connection patterns being disposed under light emitting devices. As such, Claim 17 has limitations creating a new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claims 18-19: Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to dependency on Claim 17.
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.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claim 17: Claim 17 has a few new limitations. Lines 17-19 of the claim recite: “all of both the corresponding first electrode and the corresponding emitting layer of at least one of the plurality of light emitting devices and the at least one connection pattern are located within holes of the at least two insulating layers”, while lines 11-12 recite: “at least two insulating layers disposed between the at least one connection pattern and the at least one transistor”. A combination of the recitations is unclear, since “the at least one connection pattern” cannot be disposed within holes of two insulating layers that are disposed under this connection pattern – such as between the at least one connection pattern and the at least one transistor. Moreover, the current application does not teach a light emitting device disposed in an insulating layer that is located between a connection pattern and a transistor – all connection patterns of the current application are disposed under light emitting devices.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claimed subject matter.
For this Office Action, since the Examiner had no clue on how to interpret the cited combination of limitations, Claim 17 was interpreted by omitting both of these limitations.
In re Claim 19: Amended Claim 19 recites: “the first optical area includes light emitting areas and first transmission areas, and the first transmission areas do not include a material layer having electrical conductive characteristics”, which is not supported by the specification of the application, including drawings, explicitly showing a conductive pattern and all electrodes of a light-emitting device in a transmission area TA1 (see Figs. 6, 7, etc.).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation as omitted from interpretation as being non-consistent with the specification.
In re Claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 17.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110491918) in view of Jung et al. (US 2022/0069042).
In re Claim 17, Zhao teaches a display device comprising (Figs. 1-3 and Fig. 5A):
a substrate 101 (shown in Fig. 5A, page 7, last paragraph) having a display area 100a and 100b (Fig. 1, page 5, second paragraph from a bottom) including a first optical area 100b,
the first optical area 100b including a central area 100c and a bezel area located outside of the central area – from a periphery of 100c to an edge of 100b, and
the display area also including a normal area 100a located outside of the first optical area 100b;
a plurality of light emitting devices within pixel 106 (Fig. 3 shows a plurality of 106 in region 100c, while Fig. 5 shows only one 106, page 6, last paragraph) disposed on the substrate 101, each of the plurality of light emitting devices at least including a first electrode 1061 (as an anode-pixel, page 8 paragraph 4 from the top) and an emitting layer – inherently existing in a light emitting diode (page 5, a paragraph under Fig. 1, referencing a light-emitting diode display panel, as well as references to a pixel 106 comprised light-emitting diodes in a last paragraph on page 6);
a plurality of transistors – as elements of a pixel driving circuit 102 (page 6: a paragraph above Figs. 3 and 4 and a paragraph below Figs. 3 and 4, teaching elements of transistors of a driving circuit) - disposed on the substrate in the normal area 100a and the bezel area – outside 100c in 100b (Fig. 5); and
at least one connection pattern 1051 of wire 105 (Figs. 4 and 5, page 7) electrically connected between at least one element of circuit 102 disposed in the bezel area (as shown in Fig. 5) and at least one light emitting device - within 106 - that is among the plurality of light emitting devices disposed in the central area 100c.
Zhang does not teach, at least, explicitly, that the element of the driving circuit 102 disposed in the bezel area connected to the light emitting device in the central area is a transistor.
Jung teaches (Fig. 4, paragraphs 0087-0090) that a driving circuit for each light emitting device comprises an electrical connection between an anode of a light emitting device and a drain of a driving transistor DRT.
Zhang and Jung teach analogous arts related to matrix displays comprising light emitting diodes, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying/understanding the Zhang device in view of the Jung device/teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Jung created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to use the one of the plurality of first connections of Zhang for connection between the anode and the source/drain electrode of the driving transistor, since operation of the device requires this connection.
In re Claim 19, Zhang/Jung teaches the display panel of Claim 17 as cited above.
Zhang further teaches (Figs. 1, 2, and 5, page 5) that the first optical area 100b includes light emitting areas – where a light emission device is disposed (see Fig. 5) - and first transmission areas (in regions for receiving optical signals to a sensor, page 5), and the first transmission areas do not include a material layer having electrically conductive characteristics: Although the last limitation was not considered, in accordance with its interpretation, it is taught by Zhang showing empty spaces between pixels/dots in Figs. 2-4 and pointing out on page 6 that a display area has no driving circuit and has a good light transmission.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Zhang/Jung in view of Li (CN 112885876). In order to avoid mistakes of the machine translation of CN 112885876, the USA version of this Chinese application, US 2022/0367587, is used hereafter.
In re Claim 18, Zhang/Jung teaches the display panel of Claim 17 as cited above, including the first optical area.
Zhang further teaches that the first optical area 100b (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5) includes light emitting areas – where the anode 1016 is disposed in Fig. 5, or where light emitting elements 106 are disposed in Figs. 2, 3 - and first transmission areas – for receiving an optical signal for a camera (page 5, paragraph 2 from the bottom) – the transmission areas are, obviously, disposed between light emitting areas.
Zhang/Jung does not teach that the light emitting areas are provided with a light shield layer whereas the transmission areas are not provided with a light shield layer, while Jung teaches (Fig. 6) no light shield layer in a transmission area TA, which is understandable, since a camera 120 is disposed under the transmission area TA.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to dispose no light shield layer in the Zhang/Jung device of Claim 17 in the light transmission area.
Li teaches (Fig. 12, paragraph 0068) a shield layer 151 under a light emitting device of a first optical zone 100b.
Zhang/Jung and Li teach analogous arts directed to display comprised light emitting diodes, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Zhung/Jung device in view of the Li device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Li created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Zhang/Jung device of Claim 17 by disposing a shield layer under the light emitting device of the first area, when absence of this layer leads to an undesirable distribution of emitted light into a depth of the display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 14-16, and 20 are allowed.
Reason for Identification of Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claims 1 and 20: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitations of Claims 1 and 20 as: “at least one of the plurality of connection patterns is disposed on a same layer as at least one active layer among active layers of the plurality of transistors”, in combination with other limitations of Claims 1 and 20 (as appropriate).
Re Claims 2-4, 6-11, and 14-16: Claims 2-4, 6-11, and 14-16 are allowed due to dependency on Claim 1.
The prior arts of record, in addition to the prior arts cited by the Office Action above, also include: Bang et al. (US 2021/0183983), Park et al. (US 2015/0333110), Qiu et al. (US 2022/0123094), and Shim et al. (US 2021/0193781).
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments (REMARKS, filed 01/14/26) have been fully considered.
Examiner agrees with the amendment to drawings (REMARKS, page 10).
Examiner suggests that the specification shall be further amended to include more clarifications (REMARKS, pages 10-11).
Examiner agrees with the amendment to Claim 6 (which overcomes Objections of this claim presented by the Non-final Rejection), but views Claim 11 as requiring further corrections (REMNARKS, page 11).
Examiner agrees that most amended claims overcame their rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (REMARKS, page 11). However, Claim 19 is still unclear, and, as the current Office Action shows, the amended Claim 17 has new issues related to its rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a).
Examiner does not understand the amended Claim 17 (REMARKS, pages 11-12). Which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), as the current Office Action show, and does not view this claim as patentable in view of the referenced prior arts. Same is applicable for claims dependent on Claim 17. Accordingly, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant related to allowability of the application (REMARKS, pages 12-13).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 01/20/26