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 Species 3, claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, 19, 24, 25 and 30-32, in the reply filed on April 24, 2026 is acknowledged. After inspection the Examiner noticed that claim 6 depends from unelected claim 5, therefore, Claims 5, 6, 17, 20-23, 26-29 and 33-35 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 7-16, 18, 19, 24, 25 and 30-32 will be examined. Action on the merits is as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (Park) (US 2022/0093652 A1).
In regards to claim 30, Park (Figs. 2B-5, 7-9B, 10-27 and associated text and items) discloses a display panel (Figs. 2B, 3A, 3B, 5, 9A, 9B, 10-27), comprising: a transistor (items M, M1, M2 or M3); a pixel defining layer (items BNP1 plus BNP2 plus BNP3) having a light-emitting opening (shown but not labeled) defined therein; a light-emitting device (Figs. 4A-4D item LD) comprising a first electrode (item CNE2) at least a center of which is not covered by the pixel defining layer (items BNP1 plus BNP2 plus BNP3), a second electrode (item CNE1) electrically connected to the transistor (items M, M1, M2 or M3) and disposed on the first electrode (item CNE2) in a region overlapping the light-emitting opening (shown but not labeled), and a light-emitting layer (item ACT or LD) disposed between the first electrode (item CNE2) and the second electrode (item CNE1); a separator (item BNK) disposed on the pixel defining layer (items BNP1 plus BNP2 plus BNP3) and having a separating opening (shown but not labeled) defined therein, the separating opening (shown but not labeled) overlapping the light-emitting opening (shown but not labeled) and the second electrode (item CNE1) being disposed in the separating opening (shown but not labeled); and a sensing electrode comprising a pattern portion (not shown but mentioned, paragraph 96) overlapping the separator (item BNK) and disposed on the separator (item BNK), and a bridge portion (items CNT1 plus ELT1-1) disposed between the pixel defining layer (items BNP1 plus BNP2 plus BNP3) and the separator (item BNK), wherein: the bridge portion (items CNT1 plus ELT1-1, paragraphs 203, 210, ) is disposed to be spaced apart from the separating opening (shown but not labeled) and partially covered by the separator (item BNK); and the pattern portion (not shown but mentioned, paragraph 96) is connected to a portion (item ELT1) of the bridge portion (items CNT1 plus ELT1-1) not covered by the separator (item BNK). Examiner notes the Applicant has not given a special definition to the term “connected”, therefore certain features can be “directly/physically”, “electrically and physically/directly”, “electrically” or “indirectly” connected.
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 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Park et al. (Park) (US 2022/0093652 A1) in view of Ko et al. (Ko) (US 2024/0138202 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
In regards to claim 31, Park does not specifically disclose wherein the separator comprises: a first side surface defining the separating opening; and a second side surface opposite to the first side surface, and wherein an interior angle formed between the second side surface and an upper surface of the pixel defining layer is smaller than an interior angle formed between the first side surface and the upper surface of the pixel defining layer.
Ko (Fig. 5-7C and associated text) discloses wherein the separator (item SPR) comprises: a first side surface defining the separating opening (shown but not labeled); and a second side surface opposite to the first side surface, and wherein an interior angle formed between the second side surface and an upper surface of the pixel defining layer (item PDL) is smaller than an interior angle formed between the first side surface and the upper surface of the pixel defining layer (item PDL).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ko for the purpose of isolating the second electrodes of light emitting devices.
In regards to claim 32, Park (Figs. 2B-5, 7-9B, 10-27 and associated text and items) as modified by Ko (Fig. 5-7C and associated text) discloses wherein: the separator includes a connection opening in which the separator on a portion of the bridge portion is removed; a portion of an inner side surface of the separator defining the connection opening corresponds to the second side surface; and the pattern portion is connected to the bridge portion through the connection opening.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-16, 18, 19, 24, 25 are allowed.
The current prior art alone nor in combination discloses “a sensing electrode comprising a pattern portion overlapping the separator and a bridge portion electrically and/or physically/directly connected to the pattern portion, wherein: at least a portion of the pattern portion is disposed on the separator and the pattern portion is electrically disconnected from the second electrode along an edge of the separator”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TELLY D GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3204. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
TELLY D. GREEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/TELLY D GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights