DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is based on and claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119 to US Patent Application No. 63/521,750, filed on 06/19/2023.
Election/Restrictions
In response to a Restriction Requirement mailed on 07/22/2026, the Applicant elected without traverse Group I (claims 1-13) in a reply filed on 07/30/2026. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Currently, claims 1-13 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 05/09/2024 and 02/07/2025. The IDS have been considered.
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:
(Marked-Up Version) Flexible High Resolution Display Apparatus
(Clean Version) Flexible High Resolution Display Apparatus
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite, because the term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, because the upper and lower limits associated with the term “about” within a claim limitation cannot be clearly determined.
Claim 8 is indefinite, because the term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, because the upper and lower limits associated with the term “about” within a claim limitation cannot be clearly determined.
Claim 12 is indefinite, because the limitation “the isolated structure of the driving layer” is not mentioned before. Only an isolated structure of the light emitting unit is recited in the intervening claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
I. Prior-art rejections based on Kim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2019/0214376 A1 to Kim or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim in Fig. 1 teaches a display apparatus 100 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 89, display device 100) comprising:
a pixel electrode AE (¶ 60, pixel electrode AE) configured to supply power to a subpixel RPA, GPA, BPA (Fig. 1, ¶ 57, red pixel unit RPA, green pixel unit GPA or blue pixel unit BPA; see Note 1 below);
a common electrode CE (¶ 60, common electrode CE);
an organic transparent substrate SUB (¶ 37-¶ 38, base substrate SUB is an organic transparent substrate);
a driving layer TFTS (¶ 53, thin film transistor substrate TFTS) provided on the organic transparent substrate SUB and electrically connected to the pixel electrode AE (Fig. 1, ¶ 44, ¶ 51, drain electrode DE of thin film transistor TFT connects to a light emitting element LED via pixel electrode AE), the driving layer TFTs including a driving device TFT (¶ 36, thin film transistor TFT) configured to control power on-off of the subpixel PRA, GAP, BPA (see Note 2 below); and
a light emitting unit LED/PDL (Fig. 1, ¶ 35, a collective of light emitting element LED and pixel defining layer PDL) provided on the driving layer TFTS and including an inorganic material (¶ 60-¶ 61), the light emitting unit LED/PDL including a first semiconductor layer S1 (¶ 60, first semiconductor layer S1), an active layer M (¶ 62, intermediate layer M generating light), and a second semiconductor layer S2 (¶ 60, second semiconductor layer S2).
Note 1: A limitation of "configured to supply power to a subpixel” is attempting to define the claimed pixel electrode by what it does, rather than by what it is, which can be evidenced by its specific structure or specific composition. See MPEP § 2173.05(g). The limitation can be construed as a function and/or a property of the claimed display apparatus.
According to Section 2114 of the MPEP, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)".
Here, since Kim teaches all of the claimed structure limitations of the claimed display apparatus, the display apparatus taught by Kim is capable of performing the claimed function as recited in the limitation above.
Furthermore, according to Section 2112.III of the MPEP, "Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic{,} and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims {underlined for emphasis}."
Here, the limitation does not structurally distinguish the claimed pixel electrode over the prior art as is it directed to a function or property of the claimed display apparatus. The display apparatus including inherently has the property or can function as recited in the limitation above.
Note 2: A limitation of "configured to control power on-off of the subpixel” is attempting to define the claimed driving device by what it does, rather than by what it is, which can be evidenced by its specific structure or specific composition. See MPEP § 2173.05(g). The limitation can be construed as a function and/or a property of the claimed display apparatus.
According to Section 2114 of the MPEP, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)".
Here, since Kim teaches all of the claimed structure limitations of the claimed display apparatus, the display apparatus taught by Kim is capable of performing the claimed function as recited in the limitation above.
Furthermore, according to Section 2112.III of the MPEP, "Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic{,} and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims {underlined for emphasis}."
Here, the limitation does not structurally distinguish the claimed driving device over the prior art as is it directed to a function or property of the claimed display apparatus. The display apparatus including inherently has the property or can function as recited in the limitation above.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in Fig. 1 further teaches the organic transparent substrate SUB includes at least one of polyimide, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), plexiglass, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), transparent polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene naphthalate, polyarylate (PAR), polyetherimide, or any combination thereof (¶ 38).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in Fig. 1 further teaches the display apparatus 100 is a flexible display apparatus (¶ 35-¶ 38).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in Fig. 1 further teaches the light emitting unit LED/PDL includes a light emitting diode (LED) array structure LED (Fig. 1, ¶ 35, light emitting elements LED).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in Fig. 1 further teaches a plurality of color conversion layers CCL1, CCL2 (¶ 73, color conversion layers CCL1, CCL2) configured to convert light emitted from the light emitting unit LED/PDL into light with different colors (¶ 73-¶ 75).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Kim.
Regarding claim 7, Kim does not explicitly disclose the driving layer TFTS has a thickness of about 2 μm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 8, Kim does not explicitly disclose the light emitting unit has a thickness of about 2 μm to about 3 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2021/0351239 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”).
Regarding claim 9, Kim does not explicitly disclose the display apparatus has a pixel integration degree greater than or equal to 2,000 pixels per inch (ppi).
Bae recognizes a need for providing a display device having an ultra-high resolution image (¶ 63). Bae satisfies the need by providing a display apparatus having a pixel integration degree (¶ 62-¶ 63, pixel density) greater than or equal to 2,000 pixels per inch (ppi) (¶ 62-¶ 63).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus taught by Kim with the pixel density taught by Bae, so as to provide a display device having an ultra-high resolution image (Bae: ¶ 63).
II. Prior-art rejections based at least in part with Choi
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0183301 A1 to Choi et al. (“Choi”) in view of US 2019/0198587 A1 to Park et al. (“Park”).
PNG
media_image2.png
511
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Choi in Fig. 2 teaches a display apparatus 200 (Fig. 2 & ¶ 77, display apparatus 200) comprising:
a pixel electrode 241 (¶ 87, first electrode 241, and the first electrode is a pixel electrode) configured to supply power to a subpixel SP1, SP2, SP3 (¶ 87, first subpixel SP1, second subpixel SP2, or third subpixel SP3);
a common electrode 246 (¶ 87, second electrode 246, and the second electrode is a common electrode);
a substrate 210 (¶ 78);
a driving layer 230 (¶ 78, driving layer 230) provided on the substrate 210 and electrically connected to the pixel electrode 241 (Fig. 2, ¶ 80, ¶ 87), the driving layer 230 including a driving device 235 (¶ 80, driving element 235) configured to control power on-off of the subpixel SP1, SP2, SP3 (¶ 87); and
a light emitting unit LR2 (¶ 78, light-emitting resonance layer LR2) provided on the driving layer 230 and including an inorganic material (¶ 86), the light emitting unit LR2 including a first semiconductor layer 242 (¶ 82, first semiconductor layer 242), an active layer 243 (¶ 82, active layer 243), and a second semiconductor layer 245 (¶ 82, second semiconductor 245).
Choi does not explicitly disclose the substrate is an organic transparent substrate.
Park recognizes a need for providing a flexible display panel (¶ 23). Park satisfies the need by providing a substrate SUB formed of a transparent flexible substrate including polyimide (PI) (Fig. 3, ¶ 43), which is the same organic transparent material as the Applicant purported in paragraph 51 in the specification of the present application.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the substrate taught by Choi with the organic transparent substrate taught by Park, so as to providing a flexible display panel (Park: ¶ 23).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Choi and Park further teaches a coupling layer 220 (Choi: Fig. 2, ¶ 81, coupling layer 220) between the organic transparent substrate 210, SUB (Choi; Park) and the driving layer 230.
Regarding claim 5, Choi in Fig. 2 further teaches the coupling layer 220 includes at least one of benzocyclobutene (BCB), epoxy, or spin on glass (SOG) (¶ 67, the coupling layer includes epoxy, spin on glass (SOG), or benzocyclobutene (BCB)).
Regarding claim 10, Choi in Fig. 2 further teaches the driving layer 230 and the light emitting unit LR2 have a monolithic integration structure (¶ 146).
Regarding claim 11, Choi in Fig. 2 further teaches the light emitting unit LR2 includes an isolated structure 247 (¶ 86, isolation structure 247) that isolates at least a part of a light emitting structure 242, 243 (¶ 82, a collective of first semiconductor layer 242 and active layer 243) on a subpixel basis SP1, SP2, SP3 (Fig. 2, ¶ 78) .
Regarding claim 12, Choi in Fig. 2 further teaches a current blocking layer 244 (¶ 88, current blocking layer 244) in an area corresponding to the isolated structure 247 of the driving layer 230.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0132423 A1 to Chen et al. relates to a light emitting device comprising an array of light emitting diodes, wherein each of the light emitting diodes comprises a vertical stack of a first doped compound semiconductor region, a second doped compound semiconductor region, and an active region configured to emit radiation at a peak wavelength located between the first and the second doped compound semiconductor regions, and an electrically inactive insulating region comprising a semiconductor material of the second doped compound semiconductor regions and atoms of at least one electrically inactive dopant species, laterally surrounding each of the active regions, and disposed between each neighboring pair of the active regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights