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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of FIG. 12, added claim 21 is not drawn to fig. 12 and must be withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Cho et al. 20210249635 applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 12-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. 20190114011 in view Cho et al. 20210249635.
PNG
media_image1.png
509
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
411
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
352
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1-12 of Kim discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel including a light emitting element layer 25 (fig. 9) including a pixel defining layer 350 dividing a display area into an emission area (OLED area) and a non-emission area (350 area),
a thin film encapsulation layer 30 disposed on the light emitting element layer, and
a shielding layer (310/CFL1/ 410/420) including a shielding electrode 410 (par [0092]) disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer that is disposed on a substrate including the display area (410 in display area) and a non-display area (420 in non-display area – fig. 12); and
a light blocking layer 310 that covers an upper surface and at least a portion of a side surface of the shielding electrode,
a touch panel (200 minus 410 and 420) attached to the display panel through a first optically clear adhesive 220 (inherent clear and adhesive as it is clear to OLED emission and it adheres to layer above and below) and including touch electrodes (241/242 – par [0048]),
wherein the light emitting element layer includes a light emitting layer corresponding to the emission area 192, and the shielding electrode overlaps the non-emission area (fig. 9).
Kim does not disclose that the light blocking layer is a black matrix.
However, fig. 11 and par [0177] of Cho discloses that a reflection prevention layer 600′ may include a black matrix (or light blocking layer) 610. Note light blocking layer can be a black matrix.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim comprising the light blocking layer is a black matrix such as taught by Cho and black matrix absorbs light thereby blocks light.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the light blocking layer overlaps the non-emission area. The resulting structure would have been one wherein the black matrix overlaps the non-emission area.
Regarding claim 3, fig. 11 of Cho discloses a color filter 620 on the black matrix.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of comprising wherein the shielding layer further includes a color filter overlapping at least a portion of the shielding electrode and the emission area and disposed on the black matrix.
Regarding claims 9, figs. 1 and 9 of Kim discloses wherein the display panel comprises: a pixel circuit disposed between the substrate and the light emitting element layer and configured to drive the light emitting element layer; and pads disposed on the non-display area of the substrate and electrically connected to the pixel circuit.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses wherein the shielding electrode extends to the non-display area and it would have bene obvious to form device wherein the shielding electrode is electrically connected to a portion of the pads in order to provide grounding power.
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to form a device wherein first power or second power provided to the pixel circuit is supplied to the shielding electrode as power can be VDD or VSS.
Regarding claim 13, fig. 7 of Kim discloses wherein the touch panel comprises: a first touch electrode layerCF2 disposed on the first optically clear adhesive; an insulating film 230 disposed on the first touch electrode layer; and a second touch electrode layer CF1 disposed on the insulating film and forming the touch electrodes together with the first touch electrode layer.
Regarding claim 14, fig. 1 of Kim discloses wherein the touch panel further includes touch pads PAD (bottom of fig. 1) overlapping the non-display area and connected to the first touch electrode layer or the second touch electrode layer.
Regarding claim 21, it would have been obvious to form a device further comprising a polarizer that includes a portion of the shielding electrode in the display area, the black matrix, and the color filter in order have polarized light.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Cho in view of Jung et al. 20180033848.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses claim 2, but does not disclose wherein a color of the pixel defining layer is black.
However, par [0005] of Jung discloses OLED display may include a black pixel defining layer that includes a pigment of a black color to suppress reflection due to external light.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim and Cho further comprising wherein a color of the pixel defining layer is black such as taught by Jung to suppress reflection due to external light.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Cho in view of SHIN et al. 20170068137.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses claim 10, but does not disclose of wherein the shielding electrode contacts the portion of the pads through a contact hole.
However, par [0028] of Shin discloses of a pad line extending from the pad portion, a shielding pad line disposed to overlap part of the pad line and extending from the shielding electrode into the non-display area, and a first shielding contact hole connecting part of the shielding pad line and part of the pad line.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim further comprising wherein the shielding electrode contacts the portion of the pads through a contact hole such as taught by Shin in order to connect power to the shielding electrode.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Cho in view of Chen et al. 20230200188.
Regarding claim 15, fig. 10 of Kim discloses wherein the touch electrodes include a conductive material overlapping the non-emission area.
Kim does not disclose of a transparent conductive material overlapping the emission area and the non-emission area.
However, par [0144] In some implementations, the touch module 26 may include a plurality of touch electrodes, and the touch electrodes may be made of a transparent conductive material, for example, may be made of an Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) material, so that the touch module can not block light emitted from each light emitting device, and can not affect the display effect of the display panel.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim further comprising wherein the touch electrodes include a transparent conductive material overlapping the emission area and the non-emission area such as taught by Chen in order to be able to place the touch electrodes touch overlapping the emission area and the non-emission area without blocking light emitted from each light emitting device, and can not affect the display effect of the display panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (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 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893