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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 10-13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6-8, 12, 13, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/731866, (Lee, US 20250160126 A1) in view of Hiramatsu (US 20210242553 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee claims a display device (Claim 1, “A display device comprising”), comprising: a substrate (Claim 1, “a substrate”); a first electrode on the substrate (Claim 1, “a first electrode on the substrate”); a pixel defining layer on the first electrode (Claim 1, “a pixel-defining layer on the first electrode”); a light emitting layer on the first electrode and the pixel defining layer (Claim 1, “an emissive layer on the first electrode and the pixel-defining layer”); a second electrode on the light emitting layer (Claim 1, “a second electrode on the emissive layer”); an encapsulation layer on the second electrode (Claim 1, “an encapsulation layer on the second electrode”); a reinforcement layer on the adhesive layer (Claim 1, “a reinforcement layer between the encapsulation layer and the functional layer”); and a functional layer on the reinforcement layer (Claim 1, “a functional layer on the encapsulation layer; and a reinforcement layer between the encapsulation layer and the functional layer”).
However, Lee does not claim an adhesive layer on the encapsulation layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hiramatsu teaches an adhesive layer on the encapsulation layer (Fig. 4, 32; [0040], "...including the adhesive layer 32…").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the display device of Lee with the adhesive layer of Hiramatsu so as to "obtain sufficient high-frequency transmission characteristics", (Hiramatsu, [0008]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Lee, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, claims the display device of claim 1, wherein an interface between the reinforcement layer and the functional layer is substantially flat (Claim 1, “wherein an interface between the reinforcement layer and the functional layer is substantially flat”).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Lee, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, claims the display device of claim 1, wherein a side surface of the reinforcement layer includes a carbonized area (Claim 6, “The display device of claim 3, wherein a second side surface of the reinforcement layer located opposite to the first side surface of the reinforcement layer comprises a carbonization region.”).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Lee, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, claims the display device of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement layer is formed of a material including at least one of an optically transparent resin, epoxy, or urethane (Claim 7, “The display device of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement layer is made of a material containing at least one of an optically transparent resin, epoxy, and urethane.”).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Lee, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, claims the display device of claim 1, wherein the functional layer comprises a polarizer plate (Claim 8, “The display device of claim 1, wherein the functional layer comprises a polarizer.”).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Lee, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, claims the display device of claim 1, further comprising: an intermediate board connected to a pad area of the substrate (Claim 12, “The display device of claim 1, further comprising: an intermediate board connected to a pad area of the substrate.”).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Lee, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, claims the display device of claim 10, further comprising: a circuit board connected to the intermediate board (Claim 13, “The display device of claim 12, further comprising: a circuit board connected to the intermediate board.”).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Lee, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, claims the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a protective layer disposed on a lower portion of the substrate (Claim 14, “The display device of claim 1, further comprising: a protective layer disposed under the substrate.”).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Lee, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, claims the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a display driver disposed in a pad area of the substrate (Claim 4, “The display device of claim 3, further comprising: a display driver disposed in a pad area on the substrate.”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/731866, (Lee, US 20250160126 A1) in view of Hiramatsu (US 20210242553 A1) and Kim (US 20220336714 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Lee, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, claims the display device of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not claim wherein the adhesive layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the adhesive layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive ([0116], "The adhesive layer may include an adhesive member, for example, an optical clear adhesive (OCA) or a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the display device as described by the combination of Lee and Hiramatsu with the pressure sensitive adhesive of Kim so that the "adhesive member may be arranged between the touch screen layer and the optical functional layer", (Kim, [0108]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhe (US 20210048907 A1), in view of Hiramatsu (US 20210242553 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Rhe teaches a display device ([0002], "The present disclosure relates to a display device…"), comprising: a substrate (Fig. 2, 101; [0033], "To this end, the touch display device includes a plurality of subpixels arranged on a substrate 101 in a matrix…"); a first electrode on the substrate (Fig. 2, 132; [0037], "...a gate electrode 132 overlapping with the semiconductor layer 134…"); a pixel defining layer on the first electrode (Fig. 2, 166; [0040], "...and a pixel planarization layer 166."); a light emitting layer on the first electrode and the pixel defining layer (Fig. 2, 124; [0041], "The at least one light-emitting stack 124 is formed by stacking a hole-related layer, an organic light-emitting layer, and an electron-related layer on the anode 122 in that order or in reverse order."); a second electrode on the light emitting layer (Fig. 2, 126, 162, 164; [0042], "The cathode 126 is connected to a low-voltage (VSS) supply line via first and second auxiliary electrodes 162 and 164."); and an encapsulation layer on the second electrode (Fig. 2, 140; [0044], "The encapsulation unit 140 prevents external moisture or oxygen from permeating into the light-emitting element 120…").
However, Rhe does not teach an adhesive layer on the encapsulation layer, a reinforcement layer on the adhesive layer; and a functional layer on the reinforcement layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hiramatsu teaches an adhesive layer on the encapsulation layer (Fig. 4, 32; [0040], "...including the adhesive layer 32…"), a reinforcement layer on the adhesive layer (Fig. 4, 58; [0040], "...and includes a reinforcement layer 58…"); and a functional layer on the reinforcement layer (Fig. 4, 34; [0040], "...in the second embodiment includes the functional layer 34…").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Rhe with the layers of Hramatsu so as to "obtain sufficient high-frequency transmission characteristics", (Hiramatsu, [0008]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 1. Hiramatsu further teaches wherein an interface between the reinforcement layer and the functional layer is substantially flat (Fig. 4, 34, 58, (It is visibly flat)).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 1. Hiramatsu further teaches wherein, in plan view, the adhesive layer, the reinforcement layer, and the functional layer have a same size as each other (Fig. 1, 10; [0019], "having a laminated body with electric conductor 10 according to a first embodiment.", (The fact that the layers are not differentiated and are just called a "laminated body" means they are all the same size)).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 3. Hiramatsu further teaches wherein a side surface of the adhesive layer, a side surface of the reinforcement layer, and a side surface of the functional layer overlap each other (Fig. 4, 32, 34, 58, (They are all overlapping)).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 4. Hiramatsu further teaches wherein the side surface of the adhesive layer, the side surface of the reinforcement layer, and the side surface of the functional layer are aligned on a same line (Fig. 4, 32, 34, 58, (They are all visibly aligned on a same line)).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the reinforcement layer is formed of a material including at least one of an optically transparent resin, epoxy, or urethane.
However, Hiramatsu further teaches wherein the reinforcement layer is formed of a material including at least one of an optically transparent resin, epoxy, or urethane (Fig. 4, 58; [0049], "...and a reinforcement layer 58 (corresponding to the first reinforcement layer of the present invention) formed by a resin plate 52 and an adhesive 54.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device as described by the combination of Rhe and Hiramatsu with the resin of the reinforcement layer of Hiramatsu "so as not to deform at a high temperature", (Hiramatsu, [0041]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhe (US 20210048907 A1), in view of Hiramatsu (US 20210242553 A1) and Cronk (US 20210124848 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein a side surface of the reinforcement layer includes a carbonized area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cronk teaches wherein a side surface of the reinforcement layer includes a carbonized area ([0012], "The reinforcement layer can include, for example, fibers containing a polymer, glass, carbon, metal or combination thereof, and can alternatively be in the form of, or include, a woven scrim or screen material.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device as described by the combination of Rhe and Hiramatsu with the carbonized area of Cronk "for cut and tear resistance", (Cronk, [0043]).
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhe (US 20210048907 A1), in view of Hiramatsu (US 20210242553 A1) and Kim (US 20220336714 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the functional layer comprises a polarizer plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the functional layer comprises a polarizer plate ([0109], "In an embodiment, the optical functional layer OFL may include an anti-reflection layer.", [0110], "In an embodiment, the anti-reflection layer may include a polarization film.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device as described by the combination of Rhe and Hiramatsu with the polarizer of Kim so as to "reduce a reflectance of light", (Kim, [0109]).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the adhesive layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the adhesive layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive ([0116], "The adhesive layer may include an adhesive member, for example, an optical clear adhesive (OCA) or a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device as described by the combination of Rhe and Hiramatsu with the pressure sensitive adhesive of Kim so that the "adhesive member may be arranged between the touch screen layer and the optical functional layer", (Kim, [0108]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach comprising: an intermediate board connected to a pad area of the substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches an intermediate board connected to a pad area of the substrate (Fig. 9A, 400; [0069], "In an embodiment, the second circuit board 400 may include a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) that is bendable…").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device as described by the combination of Rhe and Hiramatsu with the intermediate board of Kim so as to have a circuit board "that is bendable", (Kim, [0069]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu and Kim, teaches the display device of claim 10. However, as previously combined, they do not teach further comprising: a circuit board connected to the intermediate board.
However, Kim further teaches further comprising: a circuit board connected to the intermediate board (Fig. 9A, 300; [0073], "As another example, the first circuit board 300 or the second circuit board 400 may be electrically connected to a main circuit board.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device as described by the combination of Rhe, Hiramatsu, and Kim with the circuit board of Kim so as to be "electrically connected to the second circuit board", (Kim, [0073]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach further comprising: a protective layer disposed on a lower portion of the substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a protective layer disposed on a lower portion of the substrate ([0118], "Although not illustrated in the drawings, a lower protective layer may be arranged on the lower surface 100b of the substrate 100.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device as described by the combination of Rhe and Hiramatsu with the protective layer of Kim so as to "absorb physical impact from the outside", (Kim, [0118]).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Rhe, as previously modified by Hiramatsu, teaches the display device of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach further comprising: a display driver disposed in a pad area of the substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a display driver disposed in a pad area of the substrate (Fig. 9A; [0136], "The pads included in the pad portion PD may electrically contact the wires 320 included in the first circuit board 300 to receive signals and voltages for driving the display panel 200 from the display driver 350.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device as described by the combination of Rhe and Hiramatsu with the display driver of Kim so as to have a component that "may receive control signals and power voltages and may generate signals and voltages for driving the display panel", (Kim, [0068]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220238732 A1,.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY JAMES MATTABONI whose telephone number is (571)270-0766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM - 5 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at 5712707996. 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.
/TIMOTHY JAMES MATTABONI/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights