DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18/421,611 filed on January 24, 2024.
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 .
Acknowledgment
The amendment filed on 08/04/2026 responding to the Office action mailed on 05/15/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-20.
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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 12,550,581).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, 5, and Annotated Fig. 4), teaches a display device comprising:
a first display area 334 comprising a plurality of emission areas 22 configured to emit light (see, e.g., col. 4, ll. 49-51, col. 8, l. 66); and
a second display area 332 adjacent to the first display area 334, wherein the second display area 332 comprises (see, e.g., col. 8, ll. 49-52):
a plurality of emission areas 22 (see, e.g., col. 4, ll. 49-51);
a transmission portion 324 configured to transmit light (see, e.g., col. 8, ll. 25-28);
a thin film transistor 28 on a substrate 42 (see, e.g., col. 4, ll. 48-51, col. 5, ll.35-36);
a pixel defining layer 48 on the thin film transistor 28 to define the plurality of emission areas 22 and including a flat portion FLT having a flat upper surface and a tapered portion TPR (see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 5-6); and
a pixel electrode 72 on the thin film transistor 28 to be exposed by the pixel defining layer 48 and completely overlapping the tapered portion TPR (see, e.g., col. 5, ll. 59-60),
wherein the pixel defining layer 48 overlaps the transmission portion 324 (see, e.g., Fig. 4).
Yang does not show that the tapered portion of the pixel defining layer has an upper surface inclined from the upper surface of the flat portion.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the shape of the pixel defining layer 48 in Yang’s device. The specific claimed shape, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the pixel defining layer 48 in Yang’s device30, as the courts have held that changes in shape, without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular shape, is nothing more than one among numerous shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed tapered shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed shape in Yang’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed shape or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen shape or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen shape is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
See also Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yang (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, 5, and Annotated Fig. 4), teaches that the pixel electrode 72 overlaps an edge of the flat portion FLT and does not overlap the transmission portion 324 (see, e.g., Annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yang (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, 5, and Annotated Fig. 4), teaches that a number of pixels per unit area of the second display area is smaller than a number of pixels per unit area of the first display area (see, e.g., col. 8, ll. 4-7).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yang (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, 5, and Annotated Fig. 4), teaches that the second display area 332 further comprises:
a light emitting layer 50 on the pixel electrode 72 (see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 11-12); and
a common electrode 52 on the light emitting layer 50 in the plurality of emission areas 22 and on the pixel defining layer 48 in an area excluding the plurality of emission areas 22 and the transmission portion 324 (see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 22-23).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 12,550,581) in view of Hong (US 20230073072).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang teaches all aspects of claim 4. Yang (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, 5, and Annotated Fig. 4), teaches that the second display area 332 further comprises:
an active layer on the first metal layer and including a semiconductor region of the thin film transistor 28 (see, e.g., col. 4, ll. 52-55, col. 5, ll. 64-67, col. 6, ll. 1-4);
a second metal layer on the active layer and including a gate electrode of the thin film transistor 28 (see, e.g., col. 4, ll. 39-45);
a third metal layer on the second metal layer and including a capacitor electrode overlapping the gate electrode (see, e.g., col. 4, ll. 48-51, col. 5, ll. 64-67, col. 5, ll. 1-4);
a fourth metal layer on the third metal layer and including a first connection electrode 66 connected to the thin film transistor 28 (see, e.g., col. 5, ll. 59-63); and
a fifth metal layer on the fourth metal layer and including a second connection electrode 68 electrically connecting the first connection electrode 66 and the pixel electrode 72 (see, e.g., col. 5, ll. 59-63).
Yang does not show a first metal layer on the substrate and including a light blocking layer.
Hong (see, e.g., Figs. 10, 11A), in similar display devices to Yang, on the other hand, teaches that the second display area DA2 further comprises a first metal layer on the substrate 100 and including a light blocking layer BML, to prevent functions of the thin-film transistor TFT arranged in the second display region from being deteriorated by light passing through the transmission region TA (see, e.g., par. 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Yang’s device, a first metal layer on the substrate and including a light blocking layer, as taught by Hong, to prevent functions of the thin-film transistor TFT arranged in the second display region from being deteriorated by light passing through the transmission region TA.
Regarding Claim 6, Yang and Hong teach all aspects of claim 5. Hong (see, e.g., Figs. 10, 11A), teaches that the transmission portion TA does not overlap the first to fifth metal layers, the pixel electrode 210, and the common electrode 230 (see, e.g., Fig. 11A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/04/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights