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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Sugimoto fails to suggest of teach features of claim 1.
Specifically, the applicant argues that the gate line 32 of Sugimoto as interpreted in the Office Action of 12/22/2025 does not appear to be properly equated with the pad layer recited in claim 1.
In supporting the argument, the applicant states that as shown in FIG. 8 of the present application, the first base layer BL1 and the second base layer BL2 overlap with each other, but do not contact each other. However, in FIG. 5 of Sugimoto, the alleged first base layer 21/36 and the alleged second base layer 22 contact each other, and there are no components therebetween.
This argument is not persuasive because the is no limitation stating that the first base layer is space apart or does not contact the second base layer.
The applicant further argues that as shown in FIG. 8 of the present application, there exists the pad layer PADL, the first barrier layer 122, and the second barrier layer 124 between the first base layer BL1 and the second base layer BL2. In other words, Applicant respectfully submits that there appears to be no component in Sugimoto that is properly mapped to the pad layer recited in claim 1.
This argument is also not persuasive because there is no limitation stating that a pad layer, a first barrier layer, and a second barrier layer of the device are between the first base layer and the second base layer. It noted that no only is it that the limitation is not claimed, the claim has no limitation regarding a first barrier layer and a second barrier layer.
In conclusion, the argument brought forward by the applicant are moot because the applicant is arguing claim limitations that were not present as at of the time of prosecuting the present application on 12/22/2025.
A person having ordinary skills in the art will find that Sugimoto clearly anticipates the limitations of claim 1, considering that portion of layer 32 resting on the uppermost surface of layer 36 is interpreted as the pad layer of Sugimoto’s invention.
The rejections in view of Sugimoto are deemed proper and would be maintained.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugimoto et al. [US PGPUB 20120049178] (hereinafter Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto teaches a display device comprising:
a first base layer (21&36, Para 52/77, Fig. 5) including opening (Fig. 5);
a pad layer (32, Para 52; i.e., portion of layer 32 resting on the uppermost surface of layer 36, Fig. 5) disposed on the first base layer, the pad layer overlapping the opening (Fig. 5);
a second base layer (22, Para 53, Para 53) disposed on the pad layer (Fig. 5);
a pixel circuit layer (13, Para 44, Fig. 2/5) disposed on the second base layer (Fig. 5); and
light emitting elements (17, Para 53, Fig. 2/5) disposed on the pixel circuit layer (Fig. 5), the light emitting elements connected to the pixel circuit layer and included in pixels (Para 42, Fig. 2/5),
wherein a color of the first base layer is different from a color of the second base layer (Para 93, wherein the first base layer 21 is transparent (Para 52) and the second base layer 22 is colored).
Regarding claim 6, Sugimoto teaches a display device wherein the first base layer and the second base layer include a same material (transparent material, Para 52/94).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 9-13 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating the claims as allowable
Claims 2-5 are objected because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a display device, comprising:
a first sub-base layer; and
a second sub-base layer disposed on the first sub-base layer, the second sub-base layer being closer to the pad layer than the first sub-base layer, and
a light transmittance of the second sub-base layer is lower than a light transmittance of the first sub-base layer (as claimed in claim 2), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claims 9-13 are objected because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a display device further comprising:
a driving chip disposed on the chip on film (COF), the driving chip that provides a signal to the pixel circuit layer, wherein, in a plan view, the chip on film (COF) and the driving chip overlap a display area in which the pixels are disposed (as claimed in claim 9), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
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 ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights