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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0313401) hereinafter “Lee” in view of AN (US 2016/0103516) hereinafter “AN”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 3-5 of Lee teaches a display device comprising: a base layer (Item BL) having a display region (Item DP-DA) defined along a first direction (Item DR1) and a second direction (Item DR2) that are orthogonal to each other; a plurality of first light emitting elements (Item PXA-R) on the base layer (Item BL), wherein each one of the first light emitting elements comprises a first electrode (Item AE), a second electrode (Item CE) on the first electrode (Item AE), and a first emission layer (Item EML) between the first electrode (Item AE) and the second electrode (Item CE); a pixel definition layer (Item PDL) having a plurality of first emission openings each of which exposes the first electrode (Item AE) of a corresponding first light emitting element (Item PXA-R) of the first light emitting elements; a thin encapsulation layer (Item TFE) that covers the first light emitting elements (Items PXA-R) and the pixel definition layer (Item PDL); and a sensing electrode (Item SP1) on the thin encapsulation layer (Item TFE), wherein the sensing electrode (Item SP1) comprises a conductive line (Paragraph 0161) that defines a plurality of first openings each corresponding to one of the first emission openings and each having an area greater than an area of each of the first emission openings, wherein the conductive line comprises a first line section, a second line section, a third line section, and a fourth line section (See Picture 2 below) that correspond to one of the first emission openings, wherein the first line section and the second line section extend in a first diagonal direction (Top left to the bottom right) that crosses the first direction (Item DR1) and the second direction (Item DR2), the first line section and the second line section being spaced apart from each other in a second diagonal direction (Bottom left to top right) that is orthogonal to the first diagonal direction, a corresponding first emission opening of the first emission openings being between the first line section and the second line section in the second diagonal direction, wherein the third line section and the fourth line section extend in the second diagonal direction and are spaced apart from each other in the first diagonal direction, the corresponding first emission opening being between the third line section and the fourth line section in the first diagonal direction, where the first, second, third, fourth line sections have a same width, wherein each of the first line section and the third line section is spaced apart at a first distance from the corresponding first emission opening (See Picture 2 below).
Lee does not teach where the second line section is spaced apart from the corresponding first emission opening at a distance less than the first distance nor where the fourth line section is spaced apart from the corresponding first emission opening at a distance greater than the first distance.
However, the distance between the sensing electrode and the emission opening is a result effective variable (AN Paragraph 0090 where varying distances between an emission opening and a sensing electrode can prevent a hiding phenomenon and Fig. 7 shows where the emission regions in respective openings in the mesh are at different potions in the openings depending on the distance of the emission opening from the wiring at that location to result in desired viewing at different viewing angles). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the emission opening and the sensing electrode at different sides of the emission opening such that the second line section is spaced apart from the corresponding first emission opening at a distance less than the first distance nor where the fourth line section is spaced apart from the corresponding first emission opening at a distance greater than the first distance because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
PNG
media_image1.png
233
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 2 (Labeled version of Lee Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 2, Lee further teaches where the first direction extends at azimuthal angles of 0° and 180°.
Lee does not teach when the first electrode of the corresponding first light emitting element is viewed at an azimuthal angle of 90° and a viewing angle of 60°, an area of the first electrode that is shielded by the second line section is greater than an area of the first electrode that is shielded by the fourth line section.
AN further teaches where the viewing angle is known to result in a hiding phenomenon depending on where the sensing electrode is located (Paragraph 0074).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, when the first electrode of the corresponding first light emitting element is viewed at an azimuthal angle of 90° and a viewing angle of 60°, an area of the first electrode that is shielded by the second line section is greater than an area of the first electrode that is shielded by the fourth line section because the shielding is known to be related to the location of the sensing electrode (AN Paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches where the first line section, the second line section, the third line section and the fourth line section have substantially the same line-width.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee and AN teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except the fourth line section has a line-width less than a line-width of the second line section.
However, the line width of the sensing electrode is a result effective variable (AN Paragraphs 0074 and 0076 where different line widths are present such that a hiding phenomenon is decreased). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the line width of the fourth line section such that the fourth line section has a line-width less than a line-width of the second line section because this is known to result in a decrease in a hiding phenomenon and "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee and AN teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except the line-width of the second line section is greater than a line-width of each of the first line section and the third line section, and wherein the line-width of the fourth line section is less than the line-width of each of the first line section and the third line section.
However, the line width of the sensing electrode is a result effective variable (AN Paragraphs 0074 and 0076 where different line widths are present such that a hiding phenomenon is decreased). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the line width of the second and fourth line sections such that the line-width of the second line section is greater than a line-width of each of the first line section and the third line section, and wherein the line-width of the fourth line section is less than the line-width of each of the first line section and the third line section because this is known to result in a decrease in a hiding phenomenon and "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches a plurality of second light emitting elements (Item PXA-B) on the base layer, wherein each of the second light emitting elements comprises a first electrode (Item AE), a second electrode (Item CE) on the first electrode of the each of the second light emitting elements, and a second emission layer (Item EML) between the first and second electrodes of the each of the second light emitting elements, wherein the pixel definition layer (Item PDL) further comprises a plurality of second emission openings each of which exposes the first electrode (Item AE) of a corresponding second light emitting element of the second light emitting elements, wherein the sensing electrode (Item SP1) further comprises a plurality of second openings each corresponding to one of the second emission openings and each having an area greater than an area of each of the second emission openings, wherein the conductive line further comprises a 1-1st line section, a 2-1st line section, a 3-1st line section, and a 4-1st line section (Respective portions of the sensing electrode surrounding the opening) that correspond to the second emission openings, wherein the 1-1st line section and the 2-1st line section are spaced apart from each other in the second diagonal direction across a corresponding second emission opening of the second emission openings, wherein the 3-1st line section and the 4-1st line section are spaced apart from each other in the first diagonal direction across the corresponding second emission opening, and wherein the 1-1st line section, the 2-1st line section, the 3-1st line section, and the 4-1st line section are spaced apart at substantially the same distance from the corresponding second emission opening.
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches where the first line section and the third line section are spaced apart at a first distance from the corresponding first emission opening, and wherein the 1-1st line section and the corresponding second emission opening are spaced apart at the first distance from each other.
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches a plurality of second light emitting elements (Item PXA-G) on the base layer (Item BL), wherein each of the second light emitting elements comprises a first electrode (Item AE), a second electrode (Item CE) on the first electrode of the each of the second light emitting elements, and a second emission layer (Item EML) between the first and second electrodes of the each of the second light emitting elements, wherein the second light emitting elements comprise a 2-1st light emitting element, a 2-2nd light emitting element, a 2-3rd light emitting element, and a 2-4th light emitting element that surround a corresponding first light emitting element (Item PXA-R) of the first light emitting elements, wherein the 2-1st light emitting element and the 2-2nd light emitting element are spaced apart from each other in the second diagonal direction across the corresponding first light emitting element surrounded by the 2-1st light emitting element, the 2-2nd light emitting element, the 2-3rd light emitting element, and the 2-4th light emitting element, wherein the 2-3rd light emitting element and the 2-4th light emitting element are spaced apart from each other in the first diagonal direction across the corresponding first light emitting element surrounded by the 2-1st light emitting element, the 2-2nd light emitting element, the 2-3rd light emitting element, and the 2-4th light emitting element, and wherein the pixel definition layer (Item PDL) further comprises a 2-1st emission opening, a 2-2nd emission opening, a 2-3rd emission opening, and a 2-4th emission opening that respectively expose the first electrode of the 2-1st light emitting element, the first electrode of the 2-2nd light emitting element, the first electrode of the 2-3rd light emitting element, and the first electrode of the 2-4th light emitting element.
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches the first line section is between the corresponding first emission opening and the 2-1st emission opening, wherein the second line section is between the corresponding first emission opening and the 2-2nd emission opening, wherein the third line section is between the corresponding first emission opening and the 2-3rd emission opening, and wherein the fourth line section is between the corresponding first emission opening and the 2-4th emission opening.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee and AN teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first line section and the third line section are spaced apart at a first distance from the corresponding first emission opening, wherein the first line section is spaced apart at the first distance from the 2-1st emission opening, and wherein the third line section is spaced apart at the first distance from the 2-3rd emission opening.
However, the distance between the sensing electrode and the emission opening is a result effective variable (AN Paragraph 0090 where varying distances between an emission opening and a sensing electrode can prevent a hiding phenomenon). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the emission opening and the sensing electrode such that the first line section and the third line section are spaced apart at a first distance from the corresponding first emission opening, wherein the first line section is spaced apart at the first distance from the 2-1st emission opening, and wherein the third line section is spaced apart at the first distance from the 2-3rd emission opening because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee and AN teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the second line section is spaced apart from the 2-2nd emission opening at a distance greater than the first distance, and wherein the fourth line section is spaced apart from the 2-4th emission opening at a distance less than the first distance.
However, the distance between the sensing electrode and the emission opening is a result effective variable (AN Paragraph 0090 where varying distances between an emission opening and a sensing electrode can prevent a hiding phenomenon). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the emission opening and the sensing electrode such that the second line section is spaced apart from the 2-2nd emission opening at a distance greater than the first distance, and wherein the fourth line section is spaced apart from the 2-4th emission opening at a distance less than the first distance because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches where each of the first emission openings has a substantially tetragonal shape in a plan view.
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches where each of the first emission openings is defined by a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge, wherein the first edge and the second edge extend in the first diagonal direction and face each other in the second diagonal direction, and wherein the third edge and the fourth edge extend in the second diagonal direction and face each other in the first diagonal direction.
Regarding claim 15, Lee further teaches where each of the first light emitting elements (Item PXA-R) generates red light.
Regarding claim 16, Fig. 4 of Lee teaches a display device comprising: a base layer (Item BL) having a display region defined by a first direction (Item DR1) and a second direction (Item DR2) that are orthogonal to each other; a first light emitting element (Item PXA-R) configured to generate a first source light (Red); a 2-1st light emitting element (One of the Item PXA-G surrounding PXA-R), a 2-2nd light emitting element (A second of the Item PXA-G surrounding PXA-R), a 2-3rd light emitting element (A third of the Item PXA-G surrounding PXA-R), and a 2-4th light emitting element (A fourth of the Item PXA-G surrounding PXA-R) each of which is configured to generate a second source light (Green) and which surround the first light emitting element (Item PXA-R); a pixel definition layer (Item PDL) that comprises a first emission opening and a plurality of second emission openings, the first emission opening corresponding to the first light emitting element, the second emission openings corresponding to the 2-1st light emitting element, the 2-2nd light emitting element, the 2-3rd light emitting element, and the 2-4th light emitting element; a thin encapsulation layer (Item TFE) that covers the first light emitting element, the 2-1st light emitting element, the 2-2nd light emitting element, the 2-3rd light emitting element, the 2-4th light emitting element, and the pixel definition layer; and a sensing electrode (Item SP1) on the thin encapsulation layer (Item TFE), and comprising a conductive line comprising a first aperture corresponding to the first emission opening and a plurality of second opening that correspond to the second emission openings, the first aperture having an area greater than an area of the first emission opening, and each of the second opening having an area greater than an area of each of the second emission openings, wherein the conductive line comprises a first line section between the first light emitting element and the 2-1st light emitting element, a second line section between the first light emitting element and the 2-2nd light emitting element, a third line section between the first light emitting element and the 2-3rd light emitting element, and a fourth line section between the first light emitting element and the 2-4th light emitting element (See Picture 2 above), wherein the first line section and the second line section extend in a first diagonal direction that cross the first direction and the second direction, wherein the third line section and the fourth line section extend in a second diagonal direction orthogonal to the first diagonal direction, wherein the first, second, third and fourth line sections have a same width, wherein each of the first line section and the third line section is spaced apart at a first distance from the first emission opening (See Picture 2 above).
Lee does not teach wherein the second line section is spaced apart from the first emission opening at a distance less than the first distance nor wherein the fourth line section is spaced apart from the first emission opening at a distance greater than the first distance.
However, the distance between the sensing electrode and the emission opening is a result effective variable (AN Paragraph 0090 where varying distances between an emission opening and a sensing electrode can prevent a hiding phenomenon). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the emission opening and the sensing electrode such that the second line section is spaced apart from the first emission opening at a distance less than the first distance and wherein the fourth line section is spaced apart from the first emission opening at a distance greater than the first distance because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and AN teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first line section is spaced apart at the first distance from one of the second emission openings that corresponds to the 2-1st light emitting element, and wherein the third line section is spaced apart at the first distance from one of the second emission openings that corresponds to the 2-3rd light emitting element.
However, the distance between the sensing electrode and the emission opening is a result effective variable (AN Paragraph 0090 where varying distances between an emission opening and a sensing electrode can prevent a hiding phenomenon). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the emission opening and the sensing electrode such that the first line section is spaced apart at the first distance from one of the second emission openings that corresponds to the 2-1st light emitting element, and wherein the third line section is spaced apart at the first distance from one of the second emission openings that corresponds to the 2-3rd light emitting element because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee and AN teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the second line section is spaced apart at a distance greater than the first distance from one of the second emission openings that corresponds to the 2-2nd light emitting element.
However, the distance between the sensing electrode and the emission opening is a result effective variable (AN Paragraph 0090 where varying distances between an emission opening and a sensing electrode can prevent a hiding phenomenon). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the emission opening and the sensing electrode such that the second line section is spaced apart at a distance greater than the first distance from one of the second emission openings that corresponds to the 2-2nd light emitting element because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lee and AN teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where wherein the fourth line section is spaced apart at a distance less than the first distance from one of the second emission openings that corresponds to the 2-4th light emitting element.
However, the distance between the sensing electrode and the emission opening is a result effective variable (AN Paragraph 0090 where varying distances between an emission opening and a sensing electrode can prevent a hiding phenomenon). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the emission opening and the sensing electrode such that wherein the fourth line section is spaced apart at a distance less than the first distance from one of the second emission openings that corresponds to the 2-4th light emitting element because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 20, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches where the first line section, the second line section, the third line section, and the fourth line section have substantially the same line-width.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0313401) hereinafter “Lee” in view of AN (US 2016/0103516) hereinafter “AN” and in further view of Chai et al. (US 2021/0097919) hereinafter “Chai”.
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches an intersection region is between adjacent line sections of the first line section, the second line section, the third line section, and the fourth line section.
Lee does not teach where the intersection region has a line-width greater than line-widths of the adjacent line sections.
Fig. 7 of Chai teaches where intersection regions (Items 31) has a line-width greater than line-widths of the adjacent line sections (Item 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the intersection region has a line-width greater than line-widths of the adjacent line sections because the portions where the sections of the sensing electrode meet do not block a subpixel (Chai Paragraph 0043).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that there is criticality for the specific configuration claimed because the Applicant’s specification discusses benefits for the claimed configuration. The Examiner disagrees. While the Applicant’s claimed configuration (distances of emission openings to line sections) has some benefits, the claimed configuration (specific distances of emission openings to line sections) is not critical to yielding those benefits as the Applicant’s drawings show other embodiments where the distance varies such as (but not exhaustive) A) the distance on three sides of the emission opening are the same while the fourth distance is different and B) where the distance between the emission opening and the sensing electrode is the same on all four sides of the emission opening. As such, the Applicant claimed spacing (distances) are not critical.
The Applicant next argues that the combination of Lee and An does not teach the amended in claim language of “the first, second, third and fourth line sections have a same width”. However, this argument is not persuasive as both Fig. 4 of Lee and Fig. 7 of An teach where the line sections of a sensing electrode mesh are all the same surrounding respective subpixels.
The Examiner avers that the remainder of the cited limitations that the Applicant states in their remarks are not read upon by the combination of Lee and An are read upon by the combination of Lee and An. Specifically, the Examiner relies on the teaching in An of modifying the spacing between the emission opening and a sensing electrode for an optimization rationale in the rejection of claim 1. The previous response by the Examiner regarding the reliance on the combination Lee and An for the teaching is copied below for reference.
While the Examiner agrees that AN does not teach every feature of the claimed configuration, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 does not rely on an exact teaching of the specific configuration claimed but instead showed that it would have been obvious to optimize the distance between the sensing electrode and the emission openings such that the claimed configuration resulted as the AN reference identifies the distance between an emission opening and a sensing wiring as a result effective variable which the AN reference modifies such that viewing at different angles is not negatively affected by a hiding phenomenon thereby minimizing deterioration of an image quality (Paragraph 0090). The Figures in AN shows a number of different configurations where the distance is modified by changing the distance between sensing electrode wirings of a same thickness and an emission opening. The Applicant in their remarks has not argued as to why it would not have been obvious in light of the teaching in AN to optimize the distance between the emission opening and the respective portions of the sensing electrode wiring. As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891