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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/471,207 filed on September 20, 2023 in which claims 1 to 28 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on September 20 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on 07/15/2024, 09/23/2024, 12/15/2025 and 04/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of paper submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) which has been placed of record in the file.
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 § 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 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2019/0157614 A1; hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a display apparatus in Figures 1-11C and text, comprising:
a display area (DA; Fig.1; ¶ 0043);
a first area (A2; Fig.7; ¶ 0052) disposed in the display area (DA; Fig.7 is cross section view of Figure 1), the first area including a hole region (220; Fig.2, 7; ¶ 0067) and a first pattern portion adjacent the hole region (A3; Fig.7 ¶ 0052);
a plurality of first patterns (first patterns in Fig.7) disposed in the first pattern portion (600A and 600B; ¶ 0145); and
a first insulating layer (107; ¶ 0053) and a second insulating layer (310; Fig.7; ¶ 0079) disposed on the plurality of first patterns (600),
wherein the first insulating layer (107) and the second insulating layer (310) are spaced apart from each other between the plurality of first patterns (310 and 107 are spaced apart from each other through different layers in A2), and
wherein the first insulating layer (107) and the second insulating layer (310) are in contact with each other on an upper surface of each of the plurality of first patterns (310 is in contact with 107’in 600A and with 106 (upper layer of 107) in 600B; Fig.7).
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches wherein the first insulating layer (107’; Fig.7) and the second insulating layer (310) are spaced apart from each other between the plurality of first patterns by a protective layer (can be any layer formed between 107’ and 310 but for example 109).
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches wherein an upper surface of each of the plurality of first patterns (upper surface of 600A and 600B; Fig.7) is lower than an upper surface of the protective layer (lower than the upper surface of 109; Fig.7).
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches herein each of the plurality of first patterns (600A and 600B; Fig.7) comprises a lower pattern (610B1 and 610A1; Fig.7) and an upper pattern (620B1 and 620A) disposed on the lower pattern (610B1 and 610A1), wherein a lower surface of the upper pattern is wider than an upper surface of the lower pattern ((620B1 and 620A have a lower surface wider than an upper surface of each of 610B1 and 610A1; Fig.7).
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches empty space is formed between a side surface of the lower pattern and the lower surface of the upper pattern (spaces formed between the side surface of 610B1 and 610A and lower surface of 620B1 and 620A; Fig.7).
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches a first touch electrode (210; ¶ 0064) disposed on the first insulating layer (107’) and a second touch electrode (230; ¶ 0064) disposed on the second insulating layer (230 upper surfaces can be interpreted to be on a lower surface of 310A).
Regarding claim 13, Choi teaches wherein side surfaces of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are exposed in the hole region (side surfaces of 107’ and 310 are exposed in the hole region as shown below; Fig.7).
PNG
media_image1.png
669
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Choi teaches the display apparatus further comprising a camera (Fig.11), a sensor, or a light source disposed in the hole region.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 16-18, 23 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2020/0365672 A1; hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 16, Choi teaches in Figures 1-17 and related text,
a display apparatus (Fig.1), comprising:
a display area (DA; ¶ 0056);
a first area (MA, Fig.18; ¶0057) and a plurality of pixels disposed in the display area (¶0056); an anode electrode (CM, ¶0109), a light emitting layer (222; ¶ 0113), and a cathode electrode (DE; Fig.17; ¶ 0100) disposed in each of the plurality of pixels (pixels formed in DA, Fig.17);
an encapsulation layer (211, Fig.18; ¶ 0109) disposed on the cathode electrode (DE);
a first insulating layer (208) disposed on the encapsulation layer (211);
a first touch electrode (221; Fig.18; ¶0110) disposed on the first insulating layer (208);
a second insulating layer (215; ¶0112) disposed on the first touch electrode (221); and
a second touch electrode (223, Fig.17; ¶ 0117) disposed on the second insulating layer (215),
wherein the first area (M1) comprises a first pattern portion (P1; annotate Figure 18 attached below), a second pattern portion (P2; annotate Figure 18 attached below), and a first portion (D1; below attached figure) between the first pattern portion (P1) and the second pattern portion (P2),
wherein the first insulating layer (208) and the second insulating layer (215) extend in the first pattern portion (P1), the first portion (D1), and the second pattern portion (P2).
Choi does not explicitly teach a first dam portion.
However, Choi teaches different patterns (P1, D1 and P2; annotate Figure 18 attached below) that can be treated as a first dam portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have a first dam portion formed between a first pattern portion and a second pattern portion since it is very well known in the art to have pattern portions formed from the same layers and formed outside the pixel area.
Regarding claim 17, Choi teaches where in the first pattern (208; Fig. 18) comprises a plurality of first patterns (208 has a plurality of first patterns).
Regarding claim 18, Choi teaches the first insulating layer (208, Fig.18) and the second insulating layer (215, Fig.18) are in contact with each other on an upper surface of each of the plurality of first patterns (208 and 215 are in electrical/physical/thermal contact with each other in P1, Fig.18).
Regarding claim 23, Choi teaches wherein the second pattern comprises a plurality of second pattern (215, Fig. 18; has a plurality of second patterns).
Regarding claim 26, Choi teaches wherein the first area comprising the first area further comprises a hole region adjacent to the first pattern portion, wherein a camera, a sensor or a light source is disposed in the hole region (¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 27, Choi teaches wherein side surfaces of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are exposed in the hole region (the side surfaces of 208 and 215 are exposed in the in the SMA1 and DA, Fig.18).
Regarding claim 28, Choi teaches further comprising a non-display area and a second dam portion disposed in the non-display area (PA area can include Nod-display area; ¶ 0057).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-7, 10-11, 15, 19, 20-22, 24-25 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.
Claim 2 is objected to because the prior art does not teach the following limitation : “…wherein the first area further comprises a second pattern portion adjacent the first pattern portion, and a plurality of second patterns disposed in the second pattern portion, wherein an encapsulation layer is disposed on the plurality of second patterns without extending to the first pattern portion, and wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are disposed on the encapsulation layer in the second pattern portion.”
Claim 5 is objected to because the prior art does not tech the following limitation: “… the protective layer partially overlaps the plurality of first patterns” with the rest of the limitations of claims 3 and claim 1.
Claims 6-7 and 15 are objected to because the following claims are dependent on claim 5.
Claims 10-11 are objected to because the following claim are dependent on claim 2.
Claim 19 is objected too because the prior art does not teach the following claims “…the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are spaced apart from each other between the plurality of first patterns.”
Claims 20-21 are objected to because the following claims are dependent on claim 19.
Claim 24 is objected to because the prior art does not teach the following limitations: “…the encapsulation layer is disposed on the plurality of second patterns without extending to the first pattern portion.”
Claim 25 is objected to because the following claim is dependent on claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mounir S Amer whose telephone number is (571)270-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights