DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to the communications received 07/01/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claim 15 has been cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2026 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s cancelation of claim 15 overcomes the 112(d) rejection outlined in the previous Office Action. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 20 overcomes the 112(b) rejection outlined in the previous Office Action. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 04/01/2026 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 12 require "wherein an aperture of the first light emitting unit is The term “aperture” is not defined in claims 1 or 12 or in the specification. While “aperture” is defined in claim 13 as a ratio of areas, the accepted meaning is “an opening or open space” as per Merriam Webster. Thus, both the term “aperture” and its definition are new matter which was not present at the time the application was filed. Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1. Claims 14 and 17-20 are rejected for their dependency on claim 12.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14, and 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “aperture” in claims 1, 2, 4, 12, and 17 is an unspecified term which renders the claims indefinite. One having ordinary skill in the art would interpret an aperture as an opening, and while this interpretation may be applicable to claims 1 and 12, it appears incompatible with claims 2, 4, and 17. An aperture is typically defined by its size and thus require units of distance, however, claims 2, 4, and 17 describe apertures using percentages thus rendering the claims indefinite as it is not clear what the term aperture represents. Claim 13 appears to define an aperture of the first light emitting unit as “the aperture of the first light emitting unit is a ratio of an emission area of the first light emitting unit to a total area allocated to the first light emitting unit”. In addition, similar definition is also used in the arguments on page 9 of the Remarks filed 07/01/2026 regarding claim 12. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, an aperture will be interpretated as the ratio of an emission area to a total area allocated. Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1. Claims 13, 14 and 17-20 are rejected for their dependency on claim 12.
Applicant’s Claim to Figure Comparison
It is noted that this comparison is merely for the benefit of reviewers of this office action during prosecution, to allow for an understanding of the examiner’s interpretation of the Applicant’s independent claims as compared to disclosed embodiments in Applicant’s Figures. No response or comments are necessary from Applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
751
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
675
1000
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
855
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, a display apparatus ("display device DD") comprising:
a base substrate ("base layer 110") divided into a first area ("first area DP-A1") and a second area ("second area DP-A2") adjacent to the first area (see Fig. 5B and Fig. 6A);
a pixel defining layer ("pixel defining layer PDL") on the base substrate and having a first opening ("opening PDL-OP") in the first area with a first area size, and a second opening ("second opening PDL-OP1") in the second area with a second area size greater than the first area size (see Fig. 6A);
a first light emitting unit ("first light emitting element LD1") having an emission area size ("emission area size ARA1") corresponding to the first area size and configured to emit a first color light;
a second light emitting unit ("second light emitting element LD2") having an emission area size corresponding to the second area size and configured to emit the first color light;
a first pixel circuit ("first pixel circuit PC1") in the second area and connected to the first light emitting unit (see Fig. 6A);
a second pixel circuit ("second pixel circuit PC") in the second area and connected to the second light emitting unit (see Fig. 6A); and
an electronic module ("electronic module EM") in the first area and overlapping the first opening,
wherein the first light emitting unit includes a first charge generation layer ("charge generation layer CL1"), and
wherein an aperture of the first light emitting unit is smaller than an aperture of the second light emitting unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the display apparatus as recited in the claims of the instant application.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of Zheng (US 11,522,031 B2) discloses a similar display apparatus but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the first and second size openings, and the aperture of the light emitting units relative to each other e.g. “a pixel defining layer on the base substrate and having a first opening in the first area with a first area size, and a second opening in the second area with a second area size greater than the first area size;
a first light emitting unit having an emission area size corresponding to the first area size and configured to emit a first color light;
a second light emitting unit having an emission area size corresponding to the second area size and configured to emit the first color light;
wherein the first light emitting unit includes a first charge generation layer, and
wherein an aperture of the first light emitting unit is smaller than an aperture of the second light emitting unit.”
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of Huang (US 20240074268 A1) in combination with Ohsawa et al. (US 20240099052 A1), Wu et al. (US 20230126522 A1), and Ishikawa et al. (US 11,156,918 B2) discloses a similar display apparatus but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the relative apertures of the first and second light emitting units e.g. “wherein an aperture of the first light emitting unit is smaller than an aperture of the second light emitting unit”. While Huang in combination with Wu discloses different first and second area sizes, neither Huang nor Wu teach or otherwise suggest different ratios of emitting areas to total areas in separate light emitting units.
Claims 13, 14, and 17-20 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
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 BENJAMIN M KUPP whose telephone number is (571)272-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am - 4:00 pm PT.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/BENJAMIN MICHAEL KUPP/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights