DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 11, and 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses “A display device” (Figure 6 and Paragraph [0053]), “comprising: a light-emitting element including a first electrode, a second electrode on the first electrode, and a light-emitting layer between the first electrode and the second electrode” (Figure 6, Items PX, LEL, 171, 172, and 173, and Paragraph [0138] (Notice that a pixel PX as a light-emitting element comprises at least one light-emitting element LEL including a first pixel electrode 171, a second common electrode 173 on the first electrode 171, and light-emitting layer 172 between the first electrode 171 and second electrode 173.)), “a pixel-defining film having a pixel opening exposing the first electrode” (Figure 6, Item 190, and Paragraph [0141] (Notice that the bank 190 provides a pixel-defining film having a pixel opening to expose the first electrode 171.)), “a sensing electrode on the pixel-defining film” (Figure 6, Item RE, and Paragraph [0182] (Notice that a sensing electrode RE is disposed on the pixel defining film 190.)), “a light-blocking pattern on the sensing electrode” (Figure 6, Items BM1, BM2, and Paragraph [0182] (Notice that a light blocking pattern comprised of first light blocking layer BM1 and second light blocking layer BM2 is disposed on the sensing electrode RE.)), “and a color filter on the sensing electrode” (Figure 6, Items CFL, CF1, CF2, and CF3, and Paragraph [0159] (Notice that color filter layer CFL comprised of at least CF1, CF2, and CF3 is disposed on sensing electrode RE.)), “wherein the light-blocking pattern comprises a first pattern part and a second pattern part” (Figure 6, Items BM1, BM2 and Paragraph [0182] (Notice that the light blocking pattern is comprised of a second pattern part BM1 and first pattern part BM2.)), “and the first pattern part and the second pattern part are between the sensing electrode and the color filter” (Figure 6 (Notice in Figure 6 that the first pattern part BM2 has at least a portion of mass and that the second pattern part BM1 has at least a portion of mass that is between a surface of the color filter layer that makes contact with PL and the sensing electrode RE.)), “have different optical densities (OD) with respect to first light” (Figure 6 and Paragraph [0184], Lines 1 – 3).)).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the first light has a wavelength in a range of 800 nm to 1000 nm” (Paragraphs [0163] and [0183] (Notice the each of the first pattern part BM2 and second pattern part BM1 may be comprised of infrared reactive material carbon black with the material property of absorbing light in the wavelength range from 800nm to 1000nm.)).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the sensing electrode comprises a conductive line defining an electrode opening corresponding to the light-emitting element” (Figures 5 and 6 (Notice that sensing electrode RE provides a conductive line via the mesh of RE defining an edge of an opening that corresponds to light-emitting element PX.)), “and the first pattern part is in contact with an upper surface and a side surface of a first part of the conductive line” (Figure 6 (Notice that first pattern part BM2 is in contact with an upper and side surface of a first part of conductive line mesh of RE.)).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 4). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the first pattern part comprises a first region in contact with the upper surface” (Figure 6 (Notice that the first pattern part BM2 has first region in a left to right direction (i.e. left to right in the same direction that figure label “FIG. 6” is read) that is in contact with the upper surface of the conductive line mesh of RE.)), “and a second region in contact with the side surface” (Figure 6 (Notice that the first pattern part BM2 has a second region in a top to bottom, Z direction (Z-axis shown in Figure 6) that is in contact with the side surface of the conductive line mesh of RE.)), “and a first length of the first region in a normal direction of the upper surface” (Figure 6 (Notice that a first length of the first region in a normal direction of the upper surface is along the Z direction.)), “is shorter than a second length of the second region in a normal direction of the side surface” (Figure 6 (Notice that in a normal direction of the side surface (i.e. the left to right direction), a second length of BM2 is longer that the second length of BM1 along the Z-direction. In other words, the length of BM2 in the normal direction of the upper surface (Z-direction) in first region is shorter that the length of BM2 in the normal direction of the side surface (left to right direction) of the side surface in the second region.)).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 4). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein a width of the electrode opening is greater than a width of the pixel opening in a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction” (Figure 5 and 6 (Notice that a width of an opening in RE is greater that width of a pixel opening or emission area EA2 in a thickness direction along the Z-axis.)).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the second pattern part is on the first pattern part” (Figure 6 (Notice that second pattern part BM1 is disposed on the first pattern part BM2.)).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the first pattern part and the second pattern part are spaced apart from each other in a cross-section view” (Figure 6 (Notice that in the cross-sectional view of Figure 6, the first pattern part BM2 and the second pattern part BM1 are spaced apart from each other.)).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the first pattern part and the second pattern part each comprise an infrared reactive material that absorbs light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1000 nm” (Paragraphs [0163] and [0183] (Notice the each of the first pattern part BM2 and second pattern part BM1 may be comprised of infrared reactive material carbon black with the material property of absorbing light in the wavelength range from 800nm to 1000nm.)).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 9). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein a first content of the infrared reactive material with respect to a total weight of the first pattern part is greater than a second content of the infrared reactive material with respect to a total weight of the second pattern part” (Paragraph [0184], Lines 19 – 23 (Notice the weight ratio of the first pattern part BM2 is greater than the weight ration of second pattern part BM1.)).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 9). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the infrared reactive material comprises carbon” (Paragraphs [0163] and [0183] (Notice the each of the first pattern part BM2 and second pattern part BM1 may be comprised of infrared reactive material carbon black which contains carbon.)).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the light-emitting element comprises a first light-emitting element configured to emit first color-light, a second light-emitting element configured to emit second color-light different from the first color-light, and a third light-emitting element configured to emit third color-light different from the first color-light and the second color-light” (Figure 5, 6, and Paragraphs [0145] – [0147] (Notice that the light-emitting element PX is formed of light-emitting element LEL with light emitting layer 172 of differing colors of red, green, and blue.)), “and the color filter comprises a first filter configured to transmit the first color-light, a second filter configured to transmit the second color-light, and a third filter configured to transmit the third color-light” (Figure 5, 6, and Paragraphs [0145] – [0147] (Notice that the color filter layer CFL comprises a first filter CF1, a second filter CF2, and third filter CF3 that transmit each of differing colors of red, green, and blue.)).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 13). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein, on the first pattern part, at least two filters among the first filter, the second filter, and the third filter overlap each other” (Figure 6 (Notice that on the first pattern part BM2, color filters CF3 and CF2 overlap each along a line perpendicular to the Z-direction.)).
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 15 and 17 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee discloses “An electronic device comprising a display device” (Figure 6 and Paragraph [0053]), “the display device comprising: [ ] a light-emitting element including a first electrode, a second electrode on the first electrode, and a light-emitting layer between the first electrode and the second electrode” (Figure 6, Items PX, LEL, 171, 172, and 173, and Paragraph [0138] (Notice that a pixel PX as a light-emitting element comprises at least one light-emitting element LEL including a first pixel electrode 171, a second common electrode 173 on the first electrode 171, and light-emitting layer 172 between the first electrode 171 and second electrode 173.)), “a pixel-defining film in which a pixel opening exposing the first electrode is defined” (Figure 6, Item 190, and Paragraph [0141] (Notice that the bank 190 provides a pixel-defining film having a pixel opening to expose the first electrode 171.)), “a sensing electrode on the pixel-defining film” (Figure 6, Item RE, and Paragraph [0182] (Notice that a sensing electrode RE is disposed on the pixel defining film 190.)), “a light-blocking pattern on the sensing electrode” (Figure 6, Items BM1, BM2, and Paragraph [0182] (Notice that a light blocking pattern comprised of first light blocking layer BM1 and second light blocking layer BM2 is disposed on the sensing electrode RE.)), “and a color filter on the sensing electrode, and overlapping the light-emitting element” (Figure 6, Items CFL, CF1, CF2, and CF3, and Paragraph [0159] (Notice that color filter layer CFL comprised of at least CF1, CF2, and CF3 is disposed on sensing electrode RE and overlaps LEL’s of the light-emitting element PX.)), “wherein the sensing electrode comprises a conductive line defining an electrode opening corresponding to the light-emitting element” (Figures 5 and 6 (Notice that sensing electrode RE provides a conductive line via the mesh of RE defining an edge of an opening that corresponds to light-emitting element PX.)), “the light-blocking pattern comprises a third pattern part overlapping a first part of the conductive line and having a first width” (Figure 6 (Notice that a third pattern part BM2 overlaps a first part of the conductive line mesh of RE and has a first width in the left to right direction (i.e. left to right as described in the rejection of Claim 5).)), “and a fourth pattern part overlapping a second part of the conductive line and having a second width smaller than the first width” (Figure 6 (Notice that a fourth pattern part BM1 overlaps a second part of the conductive line of RE (either the same part as the first part (i.e. only nominally different as recited) or shifted in space (different physical parts)) and has a second width in the left to right direction that is less the first width described above.)), “and the third pattern part and the fourth pattern part are between the sensing electrode and the color filter” (Figure 6 (Notice in Figure 6 that the third pattern part BM2 has at least a portion of mass and that the fourth pattern part BM1 has at least a portion of mass that is between a surface of the color filter layer that makes contact with PL and the sensing electrode RE.)).
In addition, Lee teaches a display driving circuit 200 (Figure 1, Item 200, and Paragraph [0088], Lines 1 – 2) that receives various voltages such as digital video data, timing signal, and driving voltage through a circuit board 300 (Paragraph [0089]) which serve to control display driving circuit 200, but fails to explicitly disclose “a main processor controlling a function of the display device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a “a main processor controlling a function of the display device” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a source of video data and timing signals to operate a display driving circuit.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 15). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein, in a plan view, the third pattern part and the fourth pattern part each extend in a first extension direction and in a second extension direction crossing the first extension direction” (Figures 5 and 6 (Notice that in the plan view of Figure 5, third pattern part BM2 and fourth pattern part BM1 extend in a first extension Y – axis direction and a second extension X – axis direction crossing the first extension Y – axis direction.)), “and the first width and the second width are each parallel to any one of the first extension direction and the second extension direction” (Figures 5 and 6 (Notice the first width from left to right (in the X-Y plane) and the second width from left to right (in the X-Y plane) are parallel any one of the first extension Y – axis direction and the second extension X – axis direction.)).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 15). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein a width of the pixel-defining film is greater than the second width in a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction” (Figure 6 (Notice that a width of pixel-defining film 190 in a direction perpendicular a thickness direction (i.e. the left to right direction is perpendicular a thickness direction) is greater the second width from left to right as described above.)).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 15). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the third pattern part and the fourth pattern part are spaced apart from each other in a cross-section view” (Figure 6 (Notice that in the cross-sectional view of Figure 6, the third pattern part BM2 and the fourth pattern part BM1 are spaced apart from each other.)).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 15). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the display device is divided into a light-emitting region corresponding to the pixel opening and non-light-emitting region surrounding the light-emitting region” (Figures 5 and 6 (Notice that the display device of Figures 5 and 6 is divided into light-emitting regions EA1 – EA4 corresponding the pixel PX opening and are surrounded by a non-light-emitting area/region.)), “wherein the light-emitting region comprises a first light-emitting regions configured to emit first color-light, second light-emitting regions configured to emit second color-light different from the first color-light, and third light-emitting regions configured to emit third color-light different from the first color-light and the second color-light” (Figure 5, 6, and Paragraphs [0145] – [0147] (Notice that the light-emitting element PX is formed of light-emitting element LEL with light emitting layer 172 of differing colors of red, green, and blue.)), “and on a cross-section, the third pattern part surrounds one first light-emitting region, two second light-emitting regions, and one third light-emitting region” (Figures 5 and 6 (Notice that in a cross-sectional view, the third pattern part BM2 surrounds one first light-emitting region (of a first color), two second light-emitting regions (of a second color), and on third light-emitting region (of a third color).)).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 20). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the third pattern part overlaps the non-light-emitting regions between the one first light-emitting region, the two second light-emitting regions, and the one third light-emitting region” (Figures 5 and 6 (Notice that the third pattern part BM2 overlaps the non-light-emitting regions between all the above claimed light-emitting regions.)).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 15). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein, in a plan view, the fourth pattern part extends from an edge of the third pattern part” (Figures 5 and 6 (Notice that in a plan view, the fourth pattern part BM1 extends from an edge of third pattern part BM2.)).
Regarding Claim 23, Lee discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 15). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the third pattern part and the fourth pattern part each comprise an infrared reactive material that absorbs light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1000 nm” (Paragraphs [0163] and [0183] (Notice the each of the third pattern part BM2 and fourth pattern part BM1 may be comprised of infrared reactive material carbon black with the material property of absorbing light in the wavelength range from 800nm to 1000nm.)).
Regarding Claim 24, Lee discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 23). In addition, Lee discloses “wherein the infrared reactive material comprises carbon” (Paragraphs [0163] and [0183] (Notice the each of the third pattern part BM2 and fourth pattern part BM1 may be comprised of infrared reactive material carbon black which contains carbon.)).
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view Liu.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 11). In addition, Lee fails to disclose “wherein the infrared reactive material further comprises silicon”.
In similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches the usage of silicon carbide as a light absorbing material layer 17 to prevent reflections from an electrode metal layer 11 (Paragraphs [0036], [0050], and [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “wherein the infrared reactive material further comprises silicon” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to absorb light (Liu, Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Claim 25, Lee discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 24). In addition, Lee fails to disclose “wherein the infrared reactive material further comprises silicon”. However, Liu teaches the usage of silicon carbide as a light absorbing material layer 17 to prevent reflections from an electrode metal layer 11 (Paragraphs [0036], [0050], and [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “wherein the infrared reactive material further comprises silicon” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to absorb light (Liu, Paragraph [0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 16 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 for reasoning set forth in the Office Action mailed September 23, 2025.
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
Applicants amendments and arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
Primarily, the Examiner disagrees that - - Lee does not appear to disclose, or even suggest each of the features of claims 1 and 15 as presently amended - - (REMARKS, Page 9, Lines 10 – 11 (Line reference made by all written lines, excluding blank lines, page headers and indented claim recitation)). The Examiner disagrees because of the reasoning set forth in the rejections of Claim 1 and 15 above in view of Lee.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN M BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5575. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ke Xiao, can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. 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).
/BRIAN M BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627 March 12, 2026