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 .
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, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0008398).
Regarding claim 1¸ Lee teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2, substrate 10) including a non-display area (Fig. 3, NDA) and a display area (DA);
sub-pixels in the display area (Fig. 3, A1, A2, A3); and
metal lines (CBP and CBE) traversing the non-display area and the display area in a first direction (up-down in Fig. 3),
wherein each of the metal lines extends in the first direction to not overlap with emission areas of the sub-pixels (Fig. 3), and comprises metal patterns (portion extending in left-right direction) protruding in a direction crossing the first direction between the emission areas (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4¸ Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a first metal pad in the non-display area (CBP1); and
a second metal pad in the non-display area (CBP2), the second metal pad being located in the first direction from the first metal pad (Fig. 3),
wherein the metal lines connect the first metal pad and the second metal pad to each other (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5¸ Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein shapes of the metal lines are the same as each other (Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Li et a. (CN 114420859)
Regarding claim 6¸ Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the sub-pixels comprise a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel (Fig. 3), but does not teach the sub-pixels are located along the first direction, and
wherein the metal lines comprise a first metal line, the first metal line comprising:
a first metal pattern protruding in a second direction crossing the first direction between a first emission area of the first sub-pixel and a second emission area of the second sub-pixel; and
a second metal pattern protruding in the second direction between the second emission area and a third emission area of the third sub-pixel.
However, Li teaches a similar display including the sub-pixels are located along the first direction (Li Fig. 3C, lines are between every sub-pixel, and therefore regardless of whether sub-pixels are arranged up-down or left-right, the metal lines of claim 1 and Lee could be considered in the same direction as the sub-pixels), and wherein the metal lines comprise a first metal line, the first metal line comprising: a first metal pattern protruding in a second direction crossing the first direction between a first emission area of the first sub-pixel and a second emission area of the second sub-pixel; and a second metal pattern protruding in the second direction between the second emission area and a third emission area of the third sub-pixel (see Li Fig. 3C). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the metal lines and metal patterns could have been located between every sub-pixel, as taught by Li, because this allows for each sub-pixels organic layer to be disconnected from each other by the disconnection process.
Regarding claim 7¸ Lee in view of Li teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein a length of each of the first metal pattern and the second metal pattern in the second direction is longer than a length of each of the first emission area, the second emission area, and the third emission area in the second direction (see Li Fig. 3C and Lee Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8¸ Lee in view of Li teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein the first metal line further comprises:
a first line portion located in an opposite direction of the second direction from the first emission area, the first line portion being connected to the first metal pattern (Lee Fig. 3 and Li Fig. 3C);
a second line portion located in the opposite direction of the second direction from the second emission area, the second line portion connecting the first metal pattern and the second metal pattern to each other (Lee Fig. 3 and Li Fig. 3C); and
a third line portion located in the opposite direction of the second direction from the third emission area, the third line portion being connected to the second metal pattern (Lee Fig. 3 and Li Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 9¸ Lee in view of Li teaches the display device of claim 8, wherein the sub-pixels further comprise a fourth sub-pixel, a fifth sub-pixel, and a sixth sub-pixel located along the first direction (see Lee Fig. 3, A1/A2/A3 repeated as multiple pixels),
wherein the metal lines further comprise a second metal line traversing between the first emission area and a fourth emission area of the fourth sub-pixel (Lee Fig. 3 and Li Fig. 3C), between the second emission area and a fifth emission area of the fifth sub-pixel, and between the third emission area and a sixth emission area of the sixth sub-pixel (Lee Fig. 3 and Li Fig. 3C), and
wherein a first metal line and the second metal line are spaced from each other (Lee Fig. 3 and Li Fig. 3C).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0223805)(“Lee2”).
Regarding claim 21¸ Lee teaches a wearable device comprising:
a substrate including a non-display area and a display area (Fig. 3, NDA and DA);
sub-pixels in the display area (sub-pixels A1, A2, A3); and
metal lines traversing the non-display area and the display area in a first direction (up and down in Fig. 3, lines CBP and CBE), and
wherein each of the metal lines extends in the first direction to not overlap with emission areas of the sub-pixels (Fig. 3), and comprises metal patterns protruding in a direction crossing the first direction between the emission areas (see Fig. 3, patterns in left-right direction).
Lee does not specifically teach a first display panel; and a second display panel. However, Lee2 teaches that a wearable VR headset can have a first and second panel (Fig. 2, panels 10A and 10B). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the panel of Lee could have been used in a headset as two separate panels because this allows for 3D images to be viewed within the headset by having a separate panel for each eye.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 10-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-3, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein each of the metal patterns has a ring shape.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the metal lines further comprise a dummy metal line located in the second direction from outermost sub-pixels in the second direction from among the sub-pixels.
Regarding claims 11-12, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a first group of metal lines comprising metal patterns protruding in a second direction crossing the first direction ; and a second group of metal lines comprising metal patterns protruding in an opposite direction of the second direction, and wherein the first group of metal lines and the second group of metal lines are alternately located along the second direction.
Regarding claims 13-17, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a second metal pattern protruding in an opposite direction of the second direction; a third metal pattern protruding in the second direction; a fourth metal pattern protruding in the opposite direction of the second direction; and a fifth metal pattern protruding in the second direction, wherein a first emission area of the first sub-pixel is located in the second direction from the second metal pattern, and wherein a second emission area of the second sub-pixel is located in the second direction from the fourth metal pattern.
Regarding claims 18-20, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a first metal pattern protruding in a second direction crossing the first direction; a second metal pattern protruding in the second direction; and a third metal pattern protruding in the second direction; and a second metal line sequentially comprising along the first direction: a fourth metal pattern protruding in an opposite direction of the second direction; a fifth metal pattern protruding in the opposite direction of the second direction; and a sixth metal pattern protruding in the opposite direction of the second direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan G Clinton whose telephone number is (571)270-0525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday at 8:30am to 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, 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.
/EVAN G CLINTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights