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 .
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12171073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to the same inventive concept/structure. The mere difference in the claims is the use of synonymous language to describe identical structural features.
Pending Claim 1 Limitation
Patented Claim 1 Limitation (US 12,171,073 B2, Claim 1)
Conclusion: Equivalence
a panel including a display area and a non-display area, wherein a camera area including a first hole area is disposed in the display area
a display panel including a display area... and a sensor area at the display area, a first hole disposed in the sensor area
Equivalent. The Patent Specification refers to the sensor area as the camera area. The structure is identical.
a cover glass disposed on the panel
a first member disposed on a front surface of the display panel
Equivalent. The Patent Specification explicitly identifies the first member (110 - Col. 5 ln 47+) as a cover glass.
a plate disposed on the panel and opposite to the cover glass, wherein the plate includes a back plate and a metal plate
a second member disposed at a rear surface of the display panel; a third member disposed at a rear surface of the second member
Equivalent. The Patent Specification defines the second member (150) as a back plate and the third member (160) as a metal plate or rigid member. The pending claim combines them into a "plate." [Col. 6 ln 17+]
black ink is disposed on an inner side surface of the through-hole of each of the panel and the plate.
a fourth member covering an inner surface of the first hole and a portion of the second member exposed through the second hole.
Equivalent. The Patent Specification states the fourth member (170 - Col. 11 ln 7+) is a conductive light blocking member formed by coating an ink. The essential inventive step (coating the hole's inner surface for light/static control) is the same.
Pending Claim
Key Limitation Added
Corresponding Patent Claim
Patent Claim Language
2
black ink contains a conductive material.
8
"The display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fourth member is formed of a conductive material."
3
The conductive material is black carbon or silver (Ag), content is in a range of 1% to 20%.
14
"The display apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the ink has a conductive property.". The Specification mentions the ink may include black carbon or silver (Ag).
8, 9
The through-hole in the plate has different diameters (metal plate portion larger than back plate portion).
4 and 6
4: "The display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a diameter of the first hole is smaller than a diameter of the second hole.". (This requires a stepped hole structure between the two rear plates/members).
12
Further comprising a first adhesive layer and a polarizer disposed on the panel; and a cover adhesive layer.
3
3: "The display apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a polarizing plate disposed between the adhesive layer and the display panel..."
13, 14
Each of the polarizer and adhesive layers has a through-hole; the black ink is disposed on an inner side surface of their through-holes.
3 and 7
3: "...wherein the first hole is disposed along the adhesive layer, the polarizing plate, the display panel...".
7: "...wherein the fourth member covers at least one of a side surface of the adhesive layer, a side surface of the polarizing plate..."
16, 17, 18
Panel includes sub-pixels, pixel circuit, transistor, and encapsulation layer.
1
1: "...a display panel including a display area, in which a plurality of sub-pixels are disposed...". (These are standard, inherent components of the "display apparatus").
19
Further comprising one or more of a camera, a sensor, or a light source disposed in the camera area.
1
1: "...and a sensor area at the display area...". (The invention understood purpose is for housing these optical components).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
12/16/2025
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898