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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102)a)(1) as being anticipated by Sung et al., US 2021/0005683 (corresponding to US 11,818,940).
In re Claim 1, Sung discloses a display device, comprising: a substrate BS including a display area AA (Figs. 1), a light-transmitting area HA (Figs. 4), a non-display area NAA adjacent to the light-transmitting area HA, and a first opening HTA that is disposed at a position corresponding to the light-transmitting area HA; a circuit portion TR and a light-emitting element portion ELD that are disposed in the display area AA; a conductive pattern HPP disposed in the non-display area NAA; an etch stop pattern 61 disposed in the non-display area NAA; and a first coating layer E2 disposed in the first opening HTA and having conductivity, wherein the conductive pattern HPP is electrically connected to the first coating layer E2 (Figs. 1-4 and 8-9; [0066 -0234]).
In re Claim 2, Sung discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the conductive pattern HPP is the same layer as one of metal layers disposed in the display area AA and wherein the conductive pattern HPP is electrically connected to one of a plurality of lines (HSL1, HSL2) electrically connected to the display area AA (Figs. 1-4 and 8-9; [0066 -0234]).
In re Claim 3, Sung discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the etch stop pattern 61 protrudes toward an inner side of the first opening HTA, and wherein the conductive pattern HPP protrudes toward the inner side of the first opening HTA (Figs. 1-4 and 8-9; [0066 -0234]).
In re Claim 4, Sung discloses the display device of claim 3, wherein the etch stop pattern 61 protrudes further toward the light-transmitting area HA than the conductive pattern HPP does (Figs. 1-4 and 8-9; [0066 -0234]).
In re Claim 8, Sung discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the conductive pattern HPP includes a first conductive pattern (a lower portion of HPP) disposed on the substrate BS and a second conductive pattern (an upper portion of HPP) disposed on the first conductive pattern (the lower portion of HPP) (Figs. 1-4 and 8-9; [0066 -0234]).
In re Claim 9, Sung discloses the display device of claim 8, wherein an end of the first conductive pattern (the lower portion of HPP) and an end of the second conductive pattern (the upper portion of HPP) are electrically connected at a lower portion of the etch stop pattern 61(Figs. 1-4 and 8-9; [0066 -0234]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reason for indicating allowable subject matter
In re Claim 5: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 5 as: “the etch stop pattern does not overlap the substrate, and wherein the etch stop pattern is disposed in the first opening in a plan view”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
In re Claim 6: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 6 as: “the etch stop pattern includes a plurality of etch stop patterns disposed in the first opening”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
In re Claim 7: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 7 as: “a connection line configured to electrically connect a plurality of power lines bypassing the light-transmitting area, wherein the conductive pattern is electrically connected to the connection line”, in combination with limitations of Claims 1 and 2 on which it depends.
In re Claim 10: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 10 as: “a first semiconductor layer disposed on the second light-blocking layer, wherein the first conductive pattern is the same layer as the first light-blocking layer, and wherein the second conductive pattern is the same layer as the second light-blocking layer”, in combination with limitations of Claims 1 and 8 on which it depends.
In re Claim 11: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 11 as: “the plurality of protruding patterns include: a plurality of first protruding patterns disposed in a first area between the display area and the dam; a plurality of second protruding patterns disposed between the dam and the etch stop pattern; and a plurality of third protruding patterns disposed on the etch stop pattern”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
Claims 12-23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In re Claim 12, prior-art fails to disclose display device, comprising: comprising “a second coating layer disposed on a lower surface of the substrate and a lower surface of the first coating layer, wherein the first coating layer and the second coating layer are conductive and electrically connected to each other.” Therefore, the claimed device differs from prior art devices on this point and there is no evidence it would have been obvious to make this change.
In re Claim 17, prior-art fails to disclose display device, comprising: “a conductive pattern on the first top surface of the substrate, the conductive pattern between the first portion of the etch stop pattern and the substrate, the conductive pattern extending towards the opening, wherein the conductive pattern does not extend beyond the first end point.” Therefore, the claimed device differs from prior art devices on this point and there is no evidence it would have been obvious to make this change.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sung et al., US 2019/0252475;
Sung et al., US 10,991,774.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893