DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024 and 12/19/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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, 2, 4-6, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong et al. (US Pub. 2024/0130197).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding independent claim 1, Hong teaches a display device (Figs. 1+; para. 0051+), comprising:
a display area (DA) including a first optical area (OA) and a first optical bezel area (OBA) positioned outside the first optical area (Fig. 4; para. 0144-0148);
a cathode electrode (CE) (para. 0168);
a plurality of cathode holes (CH) included in the cathode electrode in the first optical area (Fig. 4; para. 0168);
a first light emitting element (EA1) positioned in the first optical area and including a first anode electrode (AE1) (Fig. 7; para. 0215, 0128);
a first subpixel circuit unit (SPC1) positioned in the first optical bezel area (Figs. 5, 6; para. 0172, 0202); and
an anode extension line (AEL) electrically connecting the first subpixel circuit unit and the first anode electrode (Figs. 5, 6; para. 0187).
Hong is silent with respect to wherein the anode extension line is positioned not to overlap the cathode hole and wherein the anode extension line includes a curved shape.
Hong teaches another embodiment wherein the data lines (DL) (analogous to the anode extension lines) are positioned not to overlap the cathode hole and wherein the data line includes a curved shape (Fig. 11; para. 0338).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the anode extension lines such that they were positioned not to overlap the cathode hole and wherein the anode extension line includes a curved shape such that they did not block or reflect light from entering the transmission areas (TA) for the purpose of ensuring high transmittance in the transmission areas.
Re claim 2, the combination of Hong teaches the anode extension line includes the curved shape bypassing the cathode hole.
Re claim 4, Hong teaches a first emission area (EA1) positioned in the first optical area; a second emission area (EA4) positioned in the first optical area; and an anode connection line (AEL) electrically connecting the first emission area and the second emission area (Fig. 6).
Re claim 5, Hong teaches wherein the first emission area and the second emission area emit light of a same color (para. 0206).
Re claim 6, Hong is silent with respect to wherein the anode connection line is positioned not to overlap the cathode hole, and wherein the anode connection line has a curved shape bypassing the cathode hole.
Hong teaches another embodiment wherein the data lines (DL) (analogous to the anode connection line) are positioned not to overlap the cathode hole and wherein the data line includes a curved shape bypassing the cathode hole (Fig. 11; para. 0338).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the anode connection line such that they were positioned not to overlap the cathode hole and wherein the anode connection line includes a curved shape bypassing the cathode hole such that they did not block or reflect light from entering the transmission areas (TA) for the purpose of ensuring high transmittance in the transmission areas.
Re claims 16 and 18, While Hong does not explicitly show that “wherein a number of anode extension lines per unit area decreases from an edge of the first optical area to a center of the first optical area” or “wherein the plurality of anode extension lines is divided into a plurality of groups, and the thickness of each of the plurality of groups decreases from an edge of the first optical area to a center of the first optical area” these limitations would be the result of the design of Hong as the wiring of the emission areas (EA) of the optical area (OA) are wired from the optical bezel area (OBA).
Re claim 17, Hong teaches a normal area (NA) surrounding the first optical bezel area (Fig. 7), and wherein the first optical area has a higher light transmittance than the normal area and the first optical bezel area (para. 0212).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408)918-7532. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights