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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-17 and 20 in the reply filed on 08/31/2026 is acknowledged.
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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US 10,734,452.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
383
443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. US 10,734,452
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B disclose a display apparatus comprising:
a display element comprising a light-emitter OLED col. 9, lines 30-41 that emits light;
a first refractive layer 510 col. 9, lines 30-41 disposed on the display element; and
a second refractive layer 530 col. 9, lines 30-41 covering the first refractive layer 510,
wherein an edge of the light-emitter OLED (annotated above) comprises a first light-emitting edge extending in a first direction,
an edge of the first refractive layer 510 (annotated above) comprises a first refractive edge corresponding to the first light-emitting edge, and
wherein the first refractive edge 510 (annotated above) comprises a first portion forming a first angle 510 (annotated above) with the first light-emitting edge on a plane, and
a second portion 510 (annotated above) forming a second angle greater than the first angle with the first light-emitting edge on the plane Fig. 9B.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B disclose the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the edge of the first refractive layer 510 surrounds the light-emitter OLED Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B disclose the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first refractive layer 510 overlaps at least partially with the light-emitter OLED Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B disclose the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an encapsulation layer 400 col. 9, lines 30-41 between the display element and the first refractive layer 510.
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) 3-5, 7, 9, 12-13, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 10,734,452.
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B disclose the display apparatus of claim 1 but do not expressly disclose wherein the first light-emitting edge and the first portion are parallel on the plane.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the first light-emitting edge and the first portion are parallel on the plane” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the first light-emitting edge and the first portion parallel on the plane). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the first light-emitting edge and the first portion are parallel on the plane” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, the claimed wherein the first light-emitting edge and the first portion are parallel on the plane is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the first light-emitting edge and the first portion are parallel on the plane” is significant; the claimed limitation of “wherein the first light-emitting edge and the first portion are parallel on the plane” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first light-emitting edge and the first portion are parallel on the plane” is not patentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach the display apparatus of claim 3 but do not expressly teach wherein the second angle is of at least about 20° but not more than about 70° on the plane.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B). 5. The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second portion is shaped to protrude in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the plane.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach the display apparatus of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the second portion is shaped to protrude in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the plane.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the second portion is shaped to protrude in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the plane” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the second portion is shaped to protrude in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the plane). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the second portion is shaped to protrude in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the plane” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, the claimed wherein the second portion is shaped to protrude in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the plane is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the second portion is shaped to protrude in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the plane” is significant; the claimed limitation of “wherein the second portion is shaped to protrude in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the plane” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the second portion is shaped to protrude in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the plane” is not patentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach the display apparatus of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein a length in the first direction of the second portion is at least about 0.2 times but not more than about 4 times a length in the first direction of the first portion.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach the display apparatus of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the first refractive layer has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the second refractive layer.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach the display apparatus of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the first refractive layer has a thickness of at least about 1.5 μm but not more than about 5 μm.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach the display apparatus of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the edge of the first refractive layer is provided with an incline forming an angle of at least about 30° but not more than about 85° with a layer disposed below.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach a display apparatus comprising:
a display element comprising a light-emitter OLED col. 9, lines 30-41 that emits light;
an encapsulation layer 400 col. 9, lines 30-41 covering the display element;
a first refractive layer 510 (annotated above) disposed over the encapsulation layer 400, an edge of the first refractive layer 510 (annotated above) surrounding the light-emitter OLED;
a second refractive layer 530 col. 9, lines 30-41 covering the first refractive layer, and
wherein the edge of the first refractive layer 510 (annotated above) comprises a first portion 510 (annotated above) and a second portion 510 (annotated above).
Kim et al. do not expressly disclose the first portion of the edge of the first refractive layer 510 is parallel to an edge of the light-emitter on a plane, and the second portion of the edge of the first refractive layer 510 is protruding in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the light-emitter on the plane.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the edge of the first refractive layer comprises a first portion parallel to an edge of the light-emitter on a plane, and a second portion protruding in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the light-emitter on the plane” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the first portion of the edge of the first refractive layer parallel to an edge of the light-emitter on a plane, and the second portion of the edge of the first refractive layer protruding in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the light-emitter on the plane). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the edge of the first refractive layer comprises a first portion parallel to an edge of the light-emitter on a plane, and a second portion protruding in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the light-emitter on the plane” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, the claimed wherein the edge of the first refractive layer comprises a first portion parallel to an edge of the light-emitter on a plane, and a second portion protruding in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the light-emitter on the plane is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the edge of the first refractive layer comprises a first portion parallel to an edge of the light-emitter on a plane, and a second portion protruding in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the light-emitter on the plane” is significant; the claimed limitation of “wherein the edge of the first refractive layer comprises a first portion parallel to an edge of the light-emitter on a plane, and a second portion protruding in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the light-emitter on the plane” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the edge of the first refractive layer comprises a first portion parallel to an edge of the light-emitter on a plane, and a second portion protruding in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the light-emitter on the plane” is not patentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach the display apparatus of claim 16 but do not expressly teach wherein a refractive index of the first refractive layer is at least 0.04 greater than a refractive index of the second refractive layer.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 20, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach the display apparatus of claim 16 but do not expressly teach wherein the edge of the first refractive layer is provided with an incline forming an angle of at least about 30° but not more than about 85° with a layer disposed below.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lim et al. US 2022/0165994.
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. in Figs. 3 and 9B teach the display apparatus of claim 14 but do not expressly teach wherein the display apparatus of claim 14, further comprising an input detection layer disposed over the encapsulation layer and comprising a conductive layer and a touch insulation layer covering the conductive layer, wherein the touch insulation layer and the first refractive layer are arranged on a same layer.
Lim et al. in Fig. 1 and [0056]-[0087] teach a display apparatus including an input detection layer 710 [0087] disposed over an encapsulation layer 420 and comprising a conductive layer [0087] and a touch insulation layer 520 [0087] covering the conductive layer 710, wherein the touch insulation layer 520 and the first refractive layer 510 are arranged on a same layer [0082] Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lim et al in the display apparatus of Kim et al. for the purpose of using touch electrodes for detecting touch in the display device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights