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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/14/24 was/were received by the Examiner before the issuance/mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered (except for anything in foreign language non-accompanied by an English translation) by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2 and 12 each recites the expression “color resistors”. This is found undescriptive of the invention. A resistor as conventionally known and defined in the art is an electrically conductive device. The layers being unconventionally called “color resistors” are not electrically conductive structures, are not colored based on their electrical resistance as the expression implicitly suggests, and are not what is conventionally known as resistors in the art. They are merely color filters as conventionally known in the art and the Examiner has assumed so. Applicants should refrain from arguing back that Applicants can be their own lexicographer because for doing so, the applicants must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess as required by MPEP 2111.01.IV, and Applicants have not done so. Applicants should also revise the description section of the specification and replace the expression “color resistors” with “color filters” (or something similar) in order to avoid confusion when reading the specification and wondering what is a color resistor while in fact looking at what is conventionally known as a color filter.
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 1-3, 5-6, 10-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YOO et al. (US 2023/0112427).
a. Re claim 1, YOO et al. disclose a display panel, comprising: a photosensitive layer OPD (see fig. 6A, [0083]; see remaining of disclosure for more details) comprising a photosensitive element ORL ([0134]); a first collimation layer PDL (see at least [0119]-[0102]) disposed on (i.e. contacting) the photosensitive element and comprising a first opening (opening accommodating ORL); an encapsulation layer TFE ([0062]) disposed on the first collimation layer; and a second collimation layer (BM-S&CF_R&DCF&CF-G&CF_B; see [0150], [0146]) disposed on the encapsulation layer and comprising a second opening (opening in BS-M accommodating DCF), wherein the first opening, the second opening, and the photosensitive element overlap each other in a thickness direction of the photosensitive layer (explicit on fig. 6), wherein the display panel further comprises a first organic layer PL ([0144]) disposed between the encapsulation layer and the second collimation layer; the encapsulation layer further comprises a second organic layer (organic layer disclosed in [0062] or [0139]); the first organic layer and the second organic layer overlap with the first opening, the second opening, the photosensitive element in the thickness direction of the photosensitive layer (explicit on fig. 6A, noting that the organic layer of encapsulation layer TFE overlaps anything layer TFE overlaps with).
b. Re claim 2, the first collimation layer is a pixel definition layer ([0119]), the pixel definition layer is provided with a plurality of pixel openings (explicit on fig. 6A) and multiple first openings (explicit on at least fig. 4A and related text), a light-emitting device ED ([0119]) is disposed in each of the pixel openings, and the pixel definition layer comprises a black organic material ([0127]).
c. Re claim 3 and in view of the 112 1st rejection above, the second collimation layer is (at least in part by the CF_R, CF_B and CF_G layers) a color filter layer, the color filter layer comprises a plurality of color filter layers (CF_R, CF_B and CF_G layers) and a black matrix BM-S ([0148]), and the black matrix further comprises a plurality of color filter layer openings (openings accommodating CF_R, CF_B and CF_G layers) and multiple second openings (explicit in view of at least figs. 4A&6A), and the color filter layers are disposed in the color filter layer openings.
d. Re claim 5, an aperture of the first opening is smaller than an aperture of the second opening (explicit on fig. 6A).
e. Re claim 6, the display panel according to claim 3, further comprises a touch layer IL&ICL1&ICL2 ([0142]) disposed between the encapsulation layer and the first organic layer, wherein the touch layer comprises a plurality of touch signal lines (ICL1 or ICL2), a third opening is defined between at least two adjacent touch signal lines (explicit on fig. 6A), and the third opening overlaps with the first opening and the second opening in the thickness direction of the photosensitive layer (explicit on fig. 6A).
f. Re claim 10, YOO et al. disclose a display device, comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises: a photosensitive layer OPD (see fig. 6A, [0083]; see remaining of disclosure for more details) comprising a photosensitive element ORL ([0134]); a first collimation layer PDL (see at least [0119]-[0102]) disposed on (i.e. contacting) the photosensitive element and comprising a first opening (opening accommodating ORL); an encapsulation layer TFE ([0062]) disposed on the first collimation layer; and a second collimation layer (BM-S&CF_R&DCF&CF-G&CF_B; see [0150], [0146]) disposed on the encapsulation layer and comprising a second opening (opening in BS-M accommodating DCF), wherein the first opening, the second opening, and the photosensitive element overlap each other in a thickness direction of the photosensitive layer (explicit on fig. 6), wherein the display panel further comprises a first organic layer PL ([0144]) disposed between the encapsulation layer and the second collimation layer; the encapsulation layer further comprises a second organic layer (organic layer disclosed in [0062] or [0139]); the first organic layer and the second organic layer overlap with the first opening, the second opening, the photosensitive element in the thickness direction of the photosensitive layer (explicit on fig. 6A, noting that the organic layer of encapsulation layer TFE overlaps anything layer TFE overlaps with).
g. Re claims 11, 12, 14 and 15, see respectively claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 rejections above.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOO et al. (US 2023/0112427) in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0329018).
a. Re claim 4, YOO et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 3 as stated above except explicitly that an aperture of the first opening is larger than an aperture of the second opening. However, Lee et al. disclose a display device similar to the one of YOO et al. wherein an equivalent of the first opening (which would be opening OP$ on figs. 8A-C end related text of Lee et al. ‘018) has an aperture larger than an aperture of an equivalent of the second opening (which would be opening B-OP4 in figs. 8A-C and related text of Lee et al. ‘018). As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided, via anon-inventive change in size (see MPEP 2144.04.IV) an aperture of the first opening to be larger than an aperture of the second opening for an application requiring such a configuration or where such a configuration is more advantageous for an efficient fingerprint reading (see MPEP 2144.I&II and 2143.E).
b. Re claim 13, YOO et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 12 as stated above except explicitly that an aperture of the first opening is larger than an aperture of the second opening. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided, via anon-inventive change in size (see MPEP 2144.04.IV) an aperture of the first opening to be larger than an aperture of the second opening in view of Lee et al. ‘018 and based on the same arguments invoked in claim 4 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. HAI et al. (US 2022/0149335) and REN et al. (US 2023/0142687) disclose structures similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights