DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/447,735 filed on August 10, 2023 in which claims 1 to 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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on August 10, 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on August 10, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on November 8, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2022-0147834 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
//
//
Notation
References to patents will be in the form of [C:L] where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of [xxxx].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-6 are 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 3 which recites inter alia “a resolution of the first light emitting device is substantially identical to a resolution of the second light emitting device”, i.e “a light emitting device’ of claim 1. Examiner is unclear what Applicant means by ‘resolution’ in the context of ‘the light emitting device’ that appears to be just a subpixel. Resolution is the ability to distinguish, resolve, at least two structures and is dependent upon spatial frequency. Further resolution would appear to depend upon the sensitivity of the sensor. In simple terms, whether Examiner can ‘resolve’ text on a page depends on the size and separation of the letters and Examiner’s vision with or without glasses, distance to the page, color of the ink, color of the page, etc. Applicant’s use of resolution fails to provide any method or standard of measurement and fails to comprehend that different methods and tools can and will result in different results for ‘resolution’. Examiner is very, very, very, very unclear on what structure Applicant is trying to describe or claim because Examiner understands that the light emitting device is merely one OLED element.
Regarding claims 4-6, the same analysis applies to the use of ‘resolution’.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
718
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1-2, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. 2021/0407344 (Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches and suggests a display device, 1000 [0106], comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
505
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a support plate, 160 [0056], including a first area, NFA1 [0056], and a second area, BA1/FA/BA2 [0074]; and
PNG
media_image3.png
492
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a display panel, 100 [0060], including a first display area, as annotated, overlapping the first area in plan view as suggested when Figure 1 and 2 are considered together, and a second display area, as annotated, overlapping the second area in plan view when Figure 1 and 2 are considered together, wherein the second area includes openings, 165 [0081], and a support area, as annotated, adjacent to the openings, as shown,
the second display area includes:
PNG
media_image4.png
406
734
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a first partial area, e.g., OA1 [0128], including a pixel circuit of a first group, 140 [0095], as annotated and as shown in Figure 3 where Examiner understands each sub-pixel will have a driving transistor, scan and data lines, a pixel circuit of a second group, 140 [0095], as annotated and shown in Figure 3 where Examiner understands that each sub-pixel will have a driving transistor and related scan and data lines, and a first light emitting device, e.g., EA7 [0126], electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the first group or the pixel circuit of the second group, as shown, where Examiner understands that each sub-pixel emission area (EA) will have an associated driving transistor, scan and data lines and that all sub-pixels and all circuits are electrically connected to one another to form a functional display device, and overlapping the support area in a plan view, where Examiner notes that in Figure 2 OA1 overlaps the non-opening area of the support plate which is understood to be the recited support area; and
second partial areas, as annotated, each including a second light emitting device, EA1 and EA8 [0126], electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the first group or the pixel circuit of the second group, where Examiner notes that all the pixel circuits of all the groups will be electrically connected to one another to implement the functionality of a display, and respectively overlapping the openings in plan view, where Examiner notes that non-OA1 portion represents the mesh 120 which in Figure 2 overlaps with the openings in the support plate, the pixel circuit of the second group includes a first partial circuit, e.g. 141b [0096] or EA6, and a second partial circuit, e.g., 141a [0096] of EA6, where Examiner takes the position that any portion of a circuit is a partial circuit, and further that a circuit necessarily comprises a partial circuit, and a corresponding second partial area, as annotated, among the second partial areas is disposed between the first partial circuit, 141a of EA6 and the second partial circuit, 141b of EA6.
Furthermore, Examiner takes the position that in reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., "a shape of the second area changes as an operation mode switches", intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Lee shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Lee's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2 which depends upon claim 1, Lee teaches the first area has a substantially flat support surface at [0053].
Regarding claim 12 which depends upon claim 1, at Figure 4 Lee teaches the support area is in a substantially lattice shape.
Regarding claim 16 which depends upon claim 1, Lee teaches the second area is unfolded in a first mode and is folded or rolled in a second mode see Figure 1 and 13.
Regarding claim 20 and referring to annotated Figure 5 Lee teaches and suggests a display device comprising:
a display panel, 100 [0060], including a first area, NFA1 [0056], and a second area, BA1/FA/BA2 [0074], wherein a shape of the first area is uniform, as shown, the second area includes:
PNG
media_image5.png
406
719
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a first partial area, as annotated, including a pixel circuit of a first group, e.g. driver 140 of SP3 see Figure 3 where Examiner notes that each sub-pixel will have an associated pixel circuit and a pixel circuit of a second group, e.g. driver 140 of SP7 and a first light emitting device, e.g. EA3 or EA7, electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the first group or the pixel circuit of the second group, as shown; and
a second partial area, as annotated, including a second light emitting device, e.g. EA4, electrically connected to the pixel circuit of the first group or the pixel circuit of the second group, where all pixel circuits will be electrically interconnected to realize display functionality, the pixel circuit of the second group includes a first partial circuit, e.g. 141a of EA3, and a second partial circuit, 141c of EA3, disposed in an area, as shown, and an opposite area of the first partial area adjacent to each other, as shown, with the second partial area, as annotated, disposed between the first partial circuit and the second partial circuit, as shown, and the first partial circuit and the second partial circuit are electrically connected by a connection line intersecting the second partial area, e.g. channel of the transistor.
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., "a shape of the second area changes as an operation mode switches,", intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Lee shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Lee's device and so it meets the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 7 which depends upon claim 1, regarding the subject matter the first area includes first areas, and the second area is disposed between two first areas adjacent to each other from among the first areas, Examiner notes that in annotated Figure 1, the structure of ‘A’ appears to be duplicated in the x and y directions in Figure 1 and so describes the subject matter of claim 7 in the context of another portion of the second display area in the folding area above or below the partial tile in Figure 5 when the upper and lower tiles will have first areas, OA1 and the resulting second areas, SP1 or SP4 will be disposed between the first areas adjacent, i.e. next to one another. Further duplication of parts has no patentable significance absent a showing of unexpected results, see MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 13 which depends upon claim 1, Lee suggests the pixel circuit of the second group includes pixel circuits, and the pixel circuits includes: a (2-1)-th pixel circuit electrically connected to a corresponding light emitting device among the first light emitting device and the second light emitting device; and a (2-2)-th pixel circuit electrically connected to a corresponding light emitting device among the first light emitting device and the second light emitting device where all the pixel circuits and partial pixel circuits are electrically connected to each other.
Regarding claim 17 which depends upon claim 1, Lee suggests at Figure 3, the panel includes connection lines, e.g. scan lines for the gate electrode and scan lines will interconnect all pixel circuits in a functioning device. Further Lee suggest interconnection lines overlap both the support area and the openings in plan view, see Figure 3 where 120 is the metal mesh.
Accordingly, Lee suggests the display panel further includes connection lines electrically connecting the first partial circuit and the second partial circuit, and at least part of the connection lines overlap corresponding openings among the openings in plan view.
Regarding claim 18 which depends upon claim 1, Lee teaches that gates are located in support areas and open areas. Further Examiner notes that scan lines supplying scan signals to a gate of a drive transistor are well known in the art. Thus Lee suggests the display panel further includes a scan line supplying a scan signal to the pixel circuit of the first group and the pixel circuit of the second group, and the scan line overlaps the support area in plan view, c.f. Figure 2 where support area overlaps mesh and non-mesh areas.
Regarding claim 19 which depends upon claim 18, Lee teaches that the drive transistor has a source (data) electrode connected to the pixel electrode and that the source overlaps the opening, i.e. overlaps the mesh 12. Examiner notes scan and data lines intersecting is well known layout in the display art and Examiner notes that mesh and non-mesh areas of Figure 2 overlap opening and support areas of the support plate.
Thus it appears that Lee suggests a data line intersecting the scan line in a plan view and supplying a data signal to the pixel circuit of the first group and the pixel circuit of the second group, and wherein a portion of the data line overlaps a corresponding opening among the openings in plan view.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 10,803,283 (Han).
Regarding claim 8 which depends upon claim 1, Lee teaches at Figure 3 contact holes, as annotated, are defined in the display panel to correspond to transistors.
Lee does not teach the pixel circuit of the second group includes a first transistor, a second transistor, a third transistor, a fourth transistor, a fifth transistor, a sixth transistor, and a seventh transistor and a capacitor, and contact holes are defined in the display panel to correspond to the first transistor, the second transistor, the third transistor, the fourth transistor, the fifth transistor, the sixth transistor and the seventh transistor.
PNG
media_image6.png
531
450
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Han is directed to improvements in displays. At Figure 4, Han teaches the pixel circuit of the second group includes a first transistor, a second transistor, a third transistor, a fourth transistor, a fifth transistor, a sixth transistor, and a seventh transistor and a capacitor. An artisan would recognize that an advantage of the 7T1C circuit is improved performance for high resolution and frame rate displays by providing better gray scale uniformity and compensation for Vth variability. An artisan would find it desirable to implement a pixel driving circuit with improved performance and accuracy. Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 1 wherein the pixel circuit of the second group includes a first transistor, a second transistor, a third transistor, a fourth transistor, a fifth transistor, a sixth transistor, and a seventh transistor and a capacitor, and contact holes are defined in the display panel to correspond to the first transistor, the second transistor, the third transistor, the fourth transistor, the fifth transistor, the sixth transistor and the seventh transistor, as taught by Han, to implement a circuit that compensates for threshold variability and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 14-15 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9 the prior art does not teach the device of claim 8, wherein at least part of the first transistor, the second transistor, the third transistor, the fourth transistor, the fifth transistor, the sixth transistor and the seventh transistor and at least part of the contact holes are disposed in the first partial circuit, and remaining transistors of the first transistor, the second transistor, the third transistor, the fourth transistor, the fifth transistor, the sixth transistor and the seventh transistor and remaining contact holes of the contact holes are disposed in the second partial circuit where Examiner understands remaining contact holes requires all remaining contact holes disposed in the second partial circuit.
Claims 10-11 depend upon claim 9 and are allowable on that basis.
Regarding claim 14 the prior art does not teach the device of claim 13, wherein the first partial circuit and the second partial circuit are spaced from each other in a first direction, with the corresponding second partial area disposed between the first partial circuit and the second partial circuit, and the (2-1)-th pixel circuit and the (2-2)-th pixel circuit are substantially symmetric with respect to the first direction.
Regarding claim 15 the prior art does not teach the device claim 1, wherein a pixel circuit is not disposed in the second partial area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joe Schoenholtz whose telephone number is (571)270-5475. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 7 AM to 7 PM PST.
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, Ms. Yara Green can be reached at (571) 272-3035. 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.
/J.E. Schoenholtz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893