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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 6/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/13/2024 is in compliance with time for filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.97, and thus, the information disclosure statement has been considered except as otherwise indicated.
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.
The following title is suggested: Display Apparatus Containing Light-Receiving Devices with Non-Cavity Structures.
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, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US20200212138A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lee discloses a display apparatus (Fig. 6), comprising:
a substrate (element BL) including an emission area (elements PXA) and a sensing area (element SNA);
a plurality of light-emitting devices (Fig. 13 elements ODL) disposed on the substrate and overlapping the emission area (paragraphs 61 and 75); and
a plurality of light-receiving devices (elements OPV) disposed on the substrate and overlapping the sensing area (paragraphs 70 and 104),
wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting devices includes a pixel electrode (elements EL1-E), an emission layer disposed on the pixel electrode (elements EM1-3), and an opposite electrode disposed on the emission layer (element EL2),
each of the plurality of light-receiving devices includes a sensing electrode (elements EL-P), an active layer disposed on the sensing electrode (elements PL-1/2, paragraph 72), and an opposite electrode disposed on the active layer (element EL2),
at least one of the plurality of sensing electrodes (elements EL-P) has a structure that is different from a stacked structure of the pixel electrode (Fig. 7, paragraphs 72-96), and
the sensing electrode includes a first transparent conductive layer (paragraph 58).
Regarding Claim 2:
Lee discloses a display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pixel electrode (Fig. 7 elements EL1-E) includes a transflective electrode including a second transparent conductive layer and a transflective metal layer (paragraphs 76-78).
Regarding Claim 3:
Lee discloses a display apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the transflective metal layer includes at least one of Ag, Al, Mg, Li, Ca, Cu, LiF/Ca, LiF/Al, MgAg, or CaAg (paragraph 78).
Regarding Claim 4:
Lee discloses a display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing electrode (Fig. 7 elements EL1-P) includes a transparent electrode including the first transparent conductive layer, and the first transparent conductive layer includes transparent conductive oxide [TCO] (paragraphs 55-58 and 77-88).
Regarding Claim 6:
Lee discloses a display apparatus according to claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of sensing electrodes (Fig. 13 elements EL1-P) has a same thickness as each other (paragraphs 68, 78 and 88).
Regarding Claim 7:
Lee discloses a display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of light-receiving devices (Fig. 13 elements OPV1-4, paragraph 152) includes a first light-receiving device, a second light-receiving device, and a third light-receiving device spaced apart from each other (Fig. 6 elements PXA and SNA, paragraph 97).
Regarding Claim 8:
Lee discloses a display apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the active layer (Figs. 9-11 elements PL-1/2) included in each of the first light-receiving device, the second light-receiving device, and the third light-receiving device includes a same material as each other (paragraphs 89-95 and 121).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200212138A1) in view of Chai et al. (US20200394371A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee 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). Based upon the prior publication date of the reference, it additionally constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Lee discloses a display apparatus according to claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose where each of the light-receiving devices has a non-cavity structure.
Chai discloses an analogous display apparatus (Figs. 1-5), wherein each of the plurality of light-receiving devices (elements SU/250, paragraph 58) has a non-cavity structure (paragraphs 94-97 and 104-106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Lee further in view of Chai to explicitly include wherein each of the plurality of light-receiving devices has a non-cavity structure because both are directed to analogous display apparatuses. Doing so improves the efficiency and reliability of the light-receiving devices (Chai, paragraphs 182-184).
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.
Claims 9-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200212138A1) in view of Park et al. (US20200111851A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee 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). Based upon the prior publication date of the reference, it additionally constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding Claim 9:
Lee discloses a display apparatus according to claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose where each of the light-receiving devices comprise a light-receiving color filter disposed on said devices.
However, Park discloses an analogous display panel (Fig. 1 element 1000) comprising a plurality of light-emitting devices (elements 310) and a plurality of light-receiving devices (elements 210), wherein a light-receiving color filter (Figs. 10-11 element 211) is disposed on a light-receiving device (elements 210/213), and wherein a first light-receiving color filter, a second light-receiving color filter, and a third light-receiving color filter include different materials from each other (paragraph 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Lee further in view of Park to explicitly include a first, second, and third light-receiving color filter disposed on respective light-receiving devices – wherein each first, second, and third filter comprises of different materials from each other – because both are directed to analogous OLED display devices. Doing so improves the performance of OLED devices (Park, paragraphs 7-13 and 94).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Lee and Park discloses a display apparatus according to claim 9, but Lee does not explicitly disclose a wavelength band for the first, second, and third light-receiving color filters.
Park, however, discloses an analogous display panel (Fig. 1 element 1000), wherein the first light-receiving color filter (Figs. 10-11 elements 211) is a red color filter that transmits light of a wavelength band of about 600 nm to about 750 nm (paragraphs 30, 61-63, and 78),
the second light-receiving color filter (elements 211) is a green color filter that transmits light of a wavelength band of about 495 nm to about 600 nm (paragraphs 30, 61-63, and 78), and
the third light-receiving color filter (elements 211) is a blue color filter that transmits light of a wavelength band of about 380 nm to about 495 nm (paragraphs 30, 61-63, and 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Lee further in view of Park to explicitly include a red, blue, and green color filter that transmits light of a specific wavelength band – for the respective light-receiving color filters – because both are directed to analogous OLED display devices. Doing so improves the performance of OLED devices, specifically the efficiency of the sensors (Park, paragraphs 7-13 and 94).
Regarding Claim 12:
Lee discloses a display apparatus according to claim 7, further comprising a fourth light-receiving device (Figs. 11 and 13 element OPV-4) spaced apart from the first light-receiving device, the second light-receiving device, and the third light-receiving device (Fig. 6 elements PXA and SNA, paragraph 97). However, Lee does not explicitly disclose a fourth light-receiving color filter disposed on said device.
Park discloses an analogous display panel (Fig. 1 element 1000), further comprising a fourth light-receiving color filter (Fig. 11A element 211IR) disposed on a fourth light-receiving device (elements 210IR/213IR, paragraphs 133-134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Lee further in view of Park to explicitly include where the fourth light-receiving device comprises a fourth light-receiving color filter disposed on said device because both are directed to analogous OLED display devices. Doing so improves the performance of OLED devices, specifically the efficiency of the sensors (Park, paragraphs 7-13 and 94).
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Lee and Park discloses a display apparatus according to claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose a wavelength band the fourth light-receiving color filter transmits.
Park discloses an analogous display panel (Fig. 1 element 1000), wherein the fourth light-receiving color filter (Fig. 11A element 211IR) transmits near-infrared rays of a wavelength band of about 750 nm to about 1000 nm (paragraphs 133-134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Lee further in view of Park to explicitly include a specific wavelength band for the fourth light-receiving color filter because both are directed to analogous OLED display devices. Doing so improves the performance of OLED devices, specifically the efficiency of the sensors (Park, paragraphs 7-13 and 94).
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Lee and Park discloses a display apparatus according to claim 12, wherein Lee further discloses the active layer (Fig. 11 element PL-1) included in the fourth light-receiving device (element OPV-4) includes a same material as the active layers included in the first light-receiving device, the second light-receiving device, and the third light-receiving device (paragraphs 89-95 and 121).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200212138A1) and Park et al. (US20200111851A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kubota et al. (US20240074272A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Lee and Park discloses a display apparatus according to claim 9, but neither Lee nor Park explicitly disclose where each of the light-emitting devices comprise a respective color filter disposed on said devices.
However, Kubota discloses an analogous display apparatus (Fig. 7C), comprising a plurality of light-receiving devices (elements 270PD) and a plurality of light-emitting devices (elements 270); wherein the plurality of light-emitting devices (elements 270) include a first light-emitting device that emits red light (element 270R), a second light-emitting device that emits green light (element 270G), and a third light-emitting device that emits blue light (element 270B, paragraph 162), a first color filter disposed on the first light-emitting device (element CFR), a second color filter disposed on the second light-emitting device (element CFG), and a third color filter disposed on the third light-emitting device (element CGB, paragraphs 225 and 303).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Lee and Park further in view of Kubota to explicitly include where each light-emitting devices further comprises a corresponding color filter – same material as the respective light-receiving color filter — because both are directed to analogous display apparatuses. Doing so improves the visual appearance and overall functionality of display devices (Kubota, paragraphs 208-210 and 401).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US 20230052993 A1), Lee et al. (US 20230050385 A1), Teranishi et al. (US 20170277316 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chloë E Benton whose telephone number is (571)272-9976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8am-6pm EST.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Chloë E Benton/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights