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 18/515,098 filed on November 20 2023 in which claims 1 to 17 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on November 20 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on November 20 2023 is 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 § 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 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim e al. (US 2021/0167151 A1; hereinafter “Kim”) in view of OH (US 2018/0033829 A1; hereinafter “Oh”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an organic light emitting display device (200, Figs. 1-18) and related text e.g. comprising:
a substrate (100, Fig.4; ¶ 0079) including a display area (PXA, Fig.4; ¶ 0103); and
a plurality of pixels (110, Fig.3; ¶ 0078) disposed in the display area (200) on the substrate (100; Fig.5);
wherein the display area includes a sensor area (211, Fig.5; ¶ 0015) including a plurality of light -transmissive areas (501, Fig.17A; ¶ 0163);
wherein the sensor area includes an electrode (211, Fig.6; ¶ 0115) disposed between the plurality of the pixels (211-OP; Fig.5);
wherein the electrode (CNE2 and CNE1; ¶ 0100) overlaps the plurality of light-transmissive areas (PXA, Fig.4; CNE, ¶ 0100).
Kim does not explicitly teach the electrodes are transparent electrode.
However, Oh teaches the connection electrode can be formed from the transparent conductive material or the metal (172, Fig.9; ¶ 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to have the connecting electrode can be transparent electrode in the device of Kim as taught by Oh for the purpose of forming electrode layers that can have multiple layers that are transparent and having high corrosion resistance and high acid (¶ 0074).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches wherein the transparent electrode includes a plurality of first transparent lines (211-1, Fig.12) extending in a first direction (Dra, Fig.12) and a plurality of second transparent lines (211-2, Fig.12) extending in a second direction (Drb, Fig.12), and wherein the plurality of first transparent lines and the plurality of second transparent lines are disposed between the plurality of the pixels (211-1 and 211-2 are placed between the pixels).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches cathode electrodes (CE, Fig.4) of the plurality of pixels disposed in the sensor area are spaced apart and physically separated from cathode electrodes of the plurality of pixels adjacent in the first direction or the second direction (CE formed in 211-OP and CE only formed in pixel, Fig.6).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the transparent electrode includes a plurality of first transparent lines extending in a first direction and a plurality of second transparent lines repeatedly formed at selected intervals in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (21 are formed in multiple directions as shown in Figure 6).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a plurality of cathode electrodes of the plurality of pixels in the sensor area are physically separated from each other by the plurality of light-transmissive areas (CE are spaced apart from 211, Fig.4), and wherein the plurality of cathode electrodes of the plurality of pixels are electrically connected to an auxiliary line formed across the sensor area (all the electrode are electrically connected to the auxiliary 231-233, Fig.5, ¶ 0111).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the auxiliary line is formed in a mesh type, and wherein the auxiliary line is electrically connected to at least a portion of the plurality of pixels disposed in the sensor area (mesh type of the 210, Fig.5).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches wherein a reference voltage is supplied to the auxiliary line (¶0082).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches wherein the auxiliary line is electrically connected to the plurality of cathode electrodes of the plurality of pixels disposed in the sensor area through a plurality of contact holes (auxiliary line are connected to the cathode and anode, Fig.5).
Regarding claim 16, Kim as modified by Oh teaches a protective layer (200-5, Fig.9) disposed on the plurality of pixels, wherein the transparent electrode (211, Fig.9) directly contacts a passivation layer (200-5) in the plurality of light-transmissive areas (501 region or 211-OP1, Fig.8).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches an organic light emitting display device (200, Figs. 1-18) and related text e.g. comprising:
a substrate (100, Fig.4; ¶ 0079) including a display area (PXA, Fig.4; ¶ 0103); and
a plurality of pixels (110, Fig.3; ¶ 0078) disposed in the display area (200) on the substrate (100; Fig.5);
wherein the display area includes a sensor area (211, Fig.5; ¶ 0015) including a plurality of light -transmissive areas (501, Fig.17A; ¶ 0163);
wherein the sensor area includes an electrode (211, Fig.6; ¶ 0115) disposed between the plurality of the pixels (211-OP; Fig.5);
wherein the electrode (CNE2 and CNE1; ¶ 0100) overlaps the plurality of light-transmissive areas (PXA, Fig.4; CNE, ¶ 0100).
Kim does not explicitly teach the electrodes are transparent electrode and the plurality of the light-transmissive areas is formed by applying Joule heating to the transparent electrode.
However, Oh teaches the connection electrode can be formed from the transparent conductive material or the metal (172, Fig.9; ¶ 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to have the connecting electrode can be transparent electrode in the device of Kim as taught by Oh for the purpose of forming electrode layers that can have multiple layers that are transparent and having high corrosion resistance and high acid (¶ 0074).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to have the plurality of the light-transmissive areas is formed by applying Joule heating to the transparent electrode in the device of Kim as taught by Oh since the presence of process limitation on a product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
(Examiner’s note: The Office recommends the applicant to amend/ remove the last limitation because the following limitation does not further limit or define the structure or the device of the claim 17. The step of method of forming a layer in a device claim would not further limit the claim or get the claim allowed over the prior art. For the following reason Examiner recommends the applicant to further amend the claim).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim e al. (US 2021/0167151 A1; hereinafter “Kim”) in view of OH (US 2018/0033829 A1; hereinafter “Oh”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0202605 A1; hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Oh teaches the transparent electrode can be formed from ITO (Oh, 172, ¶ 0057).
Kim does not teach the anode and the transparent electrode can be formed from the same material.
However, Wu teaches the anode can be made from the ITO (¶ 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to have the transparent electrode and anode formed from ITO in the device of Kim and Oh as taught by Wu since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice MPEP § 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8 and 10 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 since the prior art references do not teach the following limitation: “…the transparent electrode includes a transparent line and a plurality of first transparent pads, wherein the transparent line extends in either a first direction or a second direction, wherein the plurality of first transparent pads are formed to protrude in the second direction or the first direction that is perpendicular to the transparent line, and wherein the transparent line and the plurality of first transparent pads are electrically connected to each other through a plurality of connection portions.”
Claims 3-5 are objected to since the following claims are dependent on claim 2.
Claim 8 is objected since the prior art references do not teach the following limitation: “…the transparent electrode further includes a plurality of second transparent pads, and the plurality of second transparent pads is formed at a plurality of intersections of the plurality of first transparent lines and the plurality of second transparent lines” with the rest of the limitations of claim 6 and 1.
Claim10 is objected to since the prior art reference do not teach the following limitations:
“a plurality of cathode electrodes of the plurality of pixels disposed in the first direction are electrically connected to each other through a cathode bridge having a width corresponding to the selected intervals” with the rest of the limitations of claims 9 and 1.
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