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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (20220384683).
PNG
media_image1.png
733
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an transparent display device, comprising:
a driving backplane (fig. 5: CCL);
a light-emitting element (fig. 13: ED) disposed on the driving backplane and electrically connected to the driving backplane;
a first planarization layer (fig. 13: OC1) disposed on the driving backplane and covering the light-emitting element;
a first light-shielding layer (fig. 13: 910) disposed on the first planarization layer and having a first opening (fig. 13: OP1), wherein the first opening at least partially overlaps the light-emitting element (please see figure above);
a second planarization layer (fig. 13: CAP1; please notes that capping layers also function as planarization layers, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing, where they are used to fill in topological rough spots and create a flat surface, allowing for the creation of a uniform, flat, and smooth top layer) covering the first light-shielding layer;
a second light-shielding layer (fig. 13: 920) disposed on the second planarization layer and having a second opening (fig. 13: OP2),
wherein the second opening at least partially overlaps the first opening (please see figure above);
a molding substrate (fig. 13: 930; please note that AR member acts as a protective element for the display device below, maintaining display quality) disposed on the second light-shielding layer; and
an optical clear adhesion (fig. 13: OC2; please note that planarization layers in semiconductor packaging possess adhesive properties allowing for the bonding to underlying surfaces) disposed between the molding substrate and the second light-shielding layer.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches an transparent display device according to claim 1, wherein in a top view of the transparent display device, a geometric center of the first opening of the first light-shielding layer is substantially aligned with a geometric center of the light-emitting element (please see fig. 13 showing geometric center using parallel lines AA1).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches an transparent display device according to claim 1, wherein in a top view of the transparent display device, a geometric center of the first opening of the first light-shielding layer is substantially aligned with a luminous center of the light-emitting element, and the light-emitting element has a maximum luminous intensity at a position of the luminous center (please see AA1 and light rays seen in fig. 13 which show this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches an transparent display device according to claim 1, wherein the first opening of the first light-shielding layer is substantially aligned with the second opening of the second light-shielding layer (please see the alignment of OP1 and OP2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 6 is 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 7 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 8 is 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 9 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 8.
Claim 10 is 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 11 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 10.
Claim 12 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 11.
Claim 13 is 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 14 is 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 CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818