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
During a telephone conversation with Amrita Chakrabarti on 2/3/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claim 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim(s) 1-19, drawn to a display device, classified in H10H 29/142.
II. Claim(s) 20, drawn to a method of fabricating a display device, classified in H10H 29/01.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as product made and process of making. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make other and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, as opposed to utilizing an inkjet printing scheme to form the overcoat layer, the product as claimed can be practiced by another materially different process, such as chemical vapor deposition or mask/screen processes.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/22/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Claim Objection(s)
Claim(s) 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner suggests modifying lines 2-3: “and a non-display area on [[at]] at least one side of the display area.” Examiner suggest the above change in order to place the claim in better form.
Appropriate correction is required.
America Invents Act
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bae et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0405797 A1 ).
Regarding Claim 1, Bae et al., teaches a display device comprising: a substrate (SUB, see at least Fig. 9) comprising a display area (AA, “active area,” ¶ [0057]) including a pixel area (of AA), and a non-display area (NA) at least one side of the display area; a pixel in the pixel area, and comprising a light emitting element (ED, “light emitting diode,” ¶ [0073]), a color conversion layer (1st CF) located on the light emitting element (ED), and a color filter layer (2nd CF; adjacent) located on the color conversion layer (1st CF); a first step difference compensation pattern (PCL or SCL, Fig. 9 or Fig. 17) in the non-display area (NA), and around the display area (AA); and a second step difference compensation pattern (PAS2 or Y-TL) in the non-display area (NA), and comprising a first end adjacent to the display area, and a second end opposite to the first end and located adjacent to an edge of the substrate (SUB), wherein the second step difference compensation pattern (PAS2) is located on the first step difference compensation pattern (PCL) and overlaps the first step difference compensation pattern (PCL), and covers one end of the first step difference compensation pattern (PCL).
Regarding Claim 2, Bae et al., teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the second step difference compensation pattern (PAS2, inorganic; ¶ [0238]) comprises a same material as the color filter layer (CF, inorganic for filtering).
Regarding Claim 3, Bae et al., teaches the display device according to claim 2, wherein each of the color filter layer (CF) and the second step difference compensation pattern (PAS2) comprises a first color filter pattern, a second color filter pattern, and a third color filter pattern that are successively stacked (R, G, B, ¶ [0257]), wherein the first color filter pattern comprises a red color filter, wherein the second color filter pattern comprises a green color filter, and wherein the third color filter pattern comprises a blue color filter (R, G, B; via CF filters).
Regarding Claim 4, Bae et al., teaches the display device according to claim 2, wherein the first step difference compensation pattern (PCL) comprises a third end adjacent to the display area (AA), and a fourth end opposite to the third end, wherein the first end of the second step difference compensation pattern (PAS2) is located closer to the display area (AA) than the third end of the first step difference compensation pattern (PCL) is, and wherein the second end of the second step difference compensation pattern (PAS2) is located closer to the edge of the substrate (SUB) than the fourth end of the first step difference compensation pattern (PCL) is, and covers the fourth end.
Regarding Claim 16, Bae et al., teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the second step difference compensation pattern (PAS2) comprises a black matrix (BM, ¶ [0202]).
Allowable Subject Matter
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). See claim objection/rejection above.
A. Claim(s) 5-15, 17-19 are objected 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 an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Bae et al.,) suggests a display device comprising: a substrate comprising a display area including a pixel area, and a non-display area at least one side of the display area; a pixel in the pixel area, and comprising a light emitting element, a color conversion layer located on the light emitting element, and a color filter layer located on the color conversion layer; a first step difference compensation pattern in the non-display area, and around the display area; and a second step difference compensation pattern in the non-display area, and comprising a first end adjacent to the display area, and a second end opposite to the first end and located adjacent to an edge of the substrate, wherein the second step difference compensation pattern is located on the first step difference compensation pattern and overlaps the first step difference compensation pattern, and covers one end of the first step difference compensation pattern, wherein the second step difference compensation pattern comprises a same material as the color filter layer, wherein the first step difference compensation pattern comprises a third end adjacent to the display area, and a fourth end opposite to the third end, wherein the first end of the second step difference compensation pattern is located closer to the display area than the third end of the first step difference compensation pattern is, and wherein the second end of the second step difference compensation pattern is located closer to the edge of the substrate than the fourth end of the first step difference compensation pattern is, and covers the fourth end.
However, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art the display device comprising the various elements as claimed above in combination with the specific limitation of the non-display area includes a first area most adjacent to the display area, a second area adjacent to the first area, and a third area adjacent to the second area and the edge of the substrate, wherein a dummy pixel is located in the first area, wherein signal lines are located in the second area, and wherein an antistatic circuit is located in the third area as set forth in Claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-15, 17-19 are allowable because of their dependency status from Claim 5.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
K-PION Patent File Wrapper Search
U.S. Pub. No. 20180183015 teaches similar dummy features as claimed
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Hana Featherly whose telephone number is (571)-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 10 AM - 2 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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).
/Hana Featherly/
USPTO Art Unit 2875
Patent Examiner Hana Featherly
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875