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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
The 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2024 and 01/08/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1,12-17 and 23-29 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13,15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12075654 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims in US 12075654 B2 teaches the scope of the claim limitations of application 18/773,377 being examined.
Attached below is a table of the claim(s) rejected under double patenting by the claim(s) of the parent case.
.
Claim numbering that are anticipated
Instant Application Claims
Conflicting Application/Patent Claims by Heo (US 12075654 B2)
1
1. A display apparatus comprising: a substrate comprising a display area, a peripheral area surrounding the display area, a bending area located between the display area and the peripheral area, and including a pad area located in the peripheral area; a display element on the display area; and a cover layer over the display element and comprising a first layer and a second layer on the first layer, and the second layer having a different refractive index from the first layer; wherein an edge of the cover layer is located between the bending area and the pad area.
1. A display apparatus comprising: a substrate comprising a display area and a peripheral area adjacent to the display area, and comprising a bending area where at least a portion of the peripheral area is bent; a display element on the display area; a pad portion arranged on the peripheral area with the bending area between the display element and the pad portion; an input sensing layer over the display element; and an optical functional layer over the input sensing layer and comprising a first layer having an opening corresponding to the display element, and a second layer having a different refractive index from the first layer, wherein the second layer is arranged to extend to the peripheral area and cover the bending area.
2
12. The display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a control dam between the bending area and the pad area.
2. The display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a control dam between the bending area and the pad portion.
3
13. The display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the edge of the second layer does not extend beyond the control dam that faces the pad area
3. The display apparatus of claim 2, wherein an end of the second layer does not extend beyond an end of the control dam that faces the pad portion.
4
14. The display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the control dam comprises a same material as a material included in the first layer.
4. The display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the control dam comprises a same material as a material included in the first layer.
5
15. The display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the control dam comprises a first dam and a second dam spaced apart from each other, and a valley is located between the first dam and the second dam
5. The display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the control dam comprises a first dam and a second dam spaced apart from each other, and a valley is located between the first dam and the second dam.
6
16. The display apparatus of claim 15, wherein a width of the first dam is greater than a width of the second dam.
6. The display apparatus of claim 5, wherein a width of the first dam is greater than a width of the second dam.
7
17. The display apparatus of claim 15, wherein the first dam comprises a plurality of patterns.
7. The display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the first dam comprises a plurality of patterns.
8
23. The display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a stress reduction layer arranged on the second layer corresponding to the bending area.
8. The display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a stress reduction layer arranged on the second layer corresponding to the bending area.
9
24. The display apparatus of claim 23, wherein the stress reduction layer comprises an organic insulating material.
9. The display apparatus of claim 8, wherein the stress reduction layer comprises an organic insulating material.
10
25. The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the second layer is greater than a refractive index of the first layer.
10. The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the second layer is greater than a refractive index of the first layer.
11
26. The display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: an input sensing layer over the display element; a thin-film encapsulation layer between the display element and the input sensing layer and comprising at least one inorganic encapsulation layer and at least one organic encapsulation layer; and a partition wall between the display element and the bending area and configured to control the at least one organic encapsulation layer, wherein the second layer overlaps the partition wall.
11. The display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a thin-film encapsulation layer between the display element and the input sensing layer and comprising at least one inorganic encapsulation layer and at least one organic encapsulation layer; and a partition wall between the display element and the bending area and configured to control the at least one organic encapsulation layer, wherein the second layer overlaps the partition wall.
12
27. The display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: an inorganic insulating layer on the substrate and having an opening corresponding to the bending area; a first organic layer arranged on the bending area to correspond to the opening of the inorganic insulating layer; a connection wire on the first organic layer and configured to transmit a signal from the pad portion to the display element; and a second organic layer covering the connection wire.
12. The display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: an inorganic insulating layer on the substrate and having an opening corresponding to the bending area; a first organic layer arranged on the bending area to correspond to the opening of the inorganic insulating layer; a connection wire on the first organic layer and configured to transmit a signal from the pad portion to the display element; and a second organic layer covering the connection wire.
13
28. The display apparatus of claim 27, wherein an upper surface of the second layer is inclined on the second organic layer.
13. The display apparatus of claim 12, wherein an upper surface of the second layer is inclined on the second organic layer.
14
29. The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the second layer is flat on the display area.
15. The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the second layer is flat on the display area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 18-22 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU L DIALLO whose telephone number is (571)270-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5PM.
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, FERNANDO TOLEDO can be reached on (571)272-1867. 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.
/MAMADOU L DIALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights