CTNF 18/413,917 CTNF 82751 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for 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. Regarding claim 10, applicant claims “a difference between the first length and the third length is smaller than a difference between L1 and L3” in line 4. However, claim 1 describes L1 to be a length of the first emissive region, and L2 as a length of the second emissive region, which would be equal to the first and second length described in claim 10 as “the first, second, and third emissive regions have first, second, and third lengths” in line 2. Therefore, the difference between the first and third length cannot be smaller, and must be equal to, the difference between L1 and L3 since these are the same lengths. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0191556) . Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display device comprising: a display panel including first (R), second (G), and third emissive regions (B) an input sensing layer (150) disposed on the display panel and including sensing parts, the sensing parts including: first (152r), second (152g), and third (152b) openings overlapping the first (R), second (G), and third emissive regions (B), respectively, and a cut-away portion connecting the first opening and the second opening, wherein a cut width A of the cut-away portion satisfies Inequality 1: 1 - L 1 L 2 ≤ A B ≤ 1 - L 1 L 3 Here, L1 (HR) is a length of the first emissive region in a direction, L2 (HG) is a length of the second emissive region in the direction, L3 (HB) is a length of the third emissive region in the direction, and B is a length by which the first emissive region (R) and the second emissive region (G) overlap each other in the direction (horizontal) (Lee shows the satisfaction of the inequality by which the parameters are equal.) Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the first emissive region (R), the second emissive region (G), and the third emissive region (B) emit first color light, second color light, and third color light, respectively, and the first color light, the second color light, and the third color light are different from one another (paragraph 60). Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses a wavelength range of the third color light (B) is smaller than a wavelength range of the first color light (R) and a wavelength range of the second color light (G). Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the first emissive region (R) and the second emissive region (G) are arranged along a first direction (vertical), and the third emissive region (B) is arranged along a second direction (horizontal) intersecting the first direction from the first emissive region (R) and the second emissive region (G) (Figure 6A). Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the direction corresponds to the first direction (vertical), and L1 (HR) is less than or equal to L2 (HG). Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the first (R), second (G), and third emissive regions (B) have first (w1), second (w2), and third widths (w3), respectively, in the second direction (horizontal), and a difference between the first width (w1) and the third width (w2) is smaller than a difference between L1 (HR) and L3 (HB). Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses 7. The display device of claim 5, wherein the cut width A satisfies Equation 1: A B = 1 - ( L 1 L 3 + L 2 L 3 ) / 2 Here, L1, L2, L3, and B are equal to LI, L2, L3, and B in Inequality 1 (paragraph 49). Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the first (R), second (G), and third emissive regions (B) extends in a first direction (vertical), and the first (R), second (G), and third emissive regions (B) are alternately arranged along a second direction (horizontal) intersecting the first direction (vertical). Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the direction corresponds to the second direction (horizontal), and L1 (HR) is less than or equal to L2 (HG). Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the first (R), second (G), and third emissive regions (B) have first (HR), second (HG), and third lengths (HB), respectively, in the first direction (vertical), and a difference between the first length (HR) and the third length (HB) is smaller than a difference between L1 (HR) and L3 (B). Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a gap between the first emissive region (R) and the first opening (152r) is substantially equal to a gap between the second emissive region (G) and the second opening (152g) (Figure 5). Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a gap between the first emissive region ® and the first opening (152r) is greater than a gap between the second emissive region (G) and the second opening (152g) (Figure 6A). Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the sensing parts (150) include mesh lines surrounding the first (152r), second (152g), and third openings (152b) in a plan view (paragraph 40), and the mesh lines have the cut-away portion (152) and include a conductive material (Figure 5). Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the sensing parts (150) further include a sub-conductive pattern layer (172) overlapping the cut-away portion (152), and the sub-conductive pattern layer (172) is disposed on a layer different from the mesh lines and connected to the mesh lines through a contact hole (174). Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a display device comprising: a display panel including a plurality of pixel columns including first emissive regions (R), second emissive regions (G), and third emissive regions (B) (Figure 6) an input sensing layer (150) disposed on the display panel, the input sensing layer including sensing parts the sensing parts include first openings (152r), second openings (152g), third openings (152b), and cut-away portions (Figure 5) the first openings (152r) overlap the first emissive regions (R), respectively the second openings (152g) overlap the second emissive regions (G), respectively the third openings (152b) overlap the third emissive regions (B), respectively each of the cut-away portions connects a first opening (152r) and a second opening (152g) adjacent to each other among the first openings (152r) and the second openings (152r) a cut width A of the cut-away portion satisfies Inequality 1: 1 - L 1 L 2 ≤ A B ≤ 1 - L 1 L 3 Here, L1 (HR) is a length of the first emissive region in a direction, L2 (HG) is a length of the second emissive region in the direction, L3 (HB) is a length of the third emissive region in the direction, and B is a length by which the first emissive region (R) and the second emissive region (G) overlap each other in the direction (vertical) (Lee shows the satisfaction of the inequality by which the parameters are equal.) Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses each of the plurality of pixel columns includes: the first emissive regions (R) arranged along a first direction (horizontal); the second emissive regions (G) and the first emissive regions (R) are alternatively arranged along the first direction (vertical); and the third emissive regions (B) spaced apart from the first emissive regions (R) and the second emissive regions (G) in a second direction (horizontal) intersecting the first direction and arranged along the first direction (vertical). Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the sensing parts (150) include a mesh line in which the cut-away portions are not defined, the mesh line being disposed between the first emissive region (R) and the second emissive region (G), and some of the first openings (152r) and the second openings (152g) adjacent to each other in the first direction (vertical) are spaced apart from each other with the mesh line disposed between the some of the first openings (152r) and the second openings (152g) adjacent to each other in the first direction (vertical) (paragraph 40; Figure 5). Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses the plurality of pixel columns include an n th pixel column and an (n+1) th pixel column arranged along the second direction (horizontal), where n is a natural number of 1 or larger, and a position of the mesh line disposed in the n th pixel column and a position of the mesh line disposed in the (n+1) th pixel column are different from each other in the second direction (horizontal) (Figure 8; paragraph 62). Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses each of the plurality of pixel columns includes: the first emissive regions (R) arranged along a first direction (vertical); the second emissive regions (G) spaced apart from the first emissive regions (R) in a second direction (horizontal) intersecting the first direction (vertical) and arranged along the first direction (vertical); and the third emissive regions (B) spaced apart from the first emissive regions (R) in the second direction (horizontal) and arranged along the first direction (vertical) (Figure 8; paragraph 62). Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses the plurality of pixel columns include an n th pixel column and an (n+1) th pixel column arranged along the second direction (horizontal), where n is a natural number of 1 or larger, in the n th pixel column, the second emissive regions (G) are disposed between the first emissive regions (R) and the third emissive regions (B) in the second direction (G), and in the (n+1) th pixel column, the first emissive regions are disposed between the second emissive regions and the third emissive regions in the second direction (horizontal) (Figure 8; paragraph 62) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tada et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0197924) discloses emissive regions (130/132/134) which satisfy the claimed inequality (Figure 3C) with a mesh sensing layer (202) overlapping (Figures 9-10). Akimoto et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0039360) discloses columns of emissive regions that satisfy the claimed inequality (Figure 14). Park et al. (US Publication No. 2016/0218159) discloses varying length and distance pixels as claimed (Figure 1) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R PRASAD whose telephone number is (571) 270-3129. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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. /N.R.P/ 4/20/2026 Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/413,917 Page 2 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/413,917 Page 3 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/413,917 Page 4 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/413,917 Page 5 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/413,917 Page 6 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/413,917 Page 7 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/413,917 Page 8 Art Unit: 2897
Prosecution Insights