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 .
This Office Action is in response to the application filed August 7, 2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “embodiment”, “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: flexible substrate.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“Display device” should have been A display device in line 1 of claim 1;
“a data line” should have been data lines or a plurality of data lines in line 4 of claim 1;
“wherein at least one of the data line” should have been wherein at least one of the data lines or wherein at least one of the plurality of data lines in line 11 of claim 1;
“the overcoating layer, the bank, and the spacer” should have been the overcoating layer, and the bank and/or spacer in lines 6-7 of claim 8;
“the overcoating layer, the bank, and the spacer” should have been the overcoating layer, and the bank and/or spacer in lines 3-4 of claim 9; and
from should have been between “area” and “each” in line 2 of claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 9 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.
In regard to claim 1, the limitation “data line extends to the see-through area” is unclear. Should the claim have been data line extends toward the see-through area or does the claim mean that the data extends all the way to the see-through area?
In regard to claim 9, the limitation “at least one of the overcoating layer, the bank and the spacer are extended to the see-through area” is unclear. Should the claim have been extended toward the see-through area or does the claim mean extended all the way to the see-through area?
Claims 2-22 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 1.
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) 1-5, 7-10 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0288003 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0355930 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Kim et al. teach display device 1, comprising: a flexible substrate 100 having a pixel area DA and a see-through area TH in the pixel area DA; a routing area NDA2 disposed along an outer periphery of the see-through area TH; a driving transistor Td, a switching transistor Ts, and a data line DL disposed in the pixel area DA; an overcoating layer 209 on the flexible substrate 100; a first electrode 221, a second electrode 223, and an organic light emitting element 222 between the first electrode 221 and the second electrode 223; an encapsulation unit 300 on the overcoating layer 209, wherein at least one of the data line DL extends to the see-through area TH having a corresponding shape (See Figure 17) (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
However, Kim et al. fail to teach at least one touch electrode on the encapsulation unit.
In regard to claim 1, Lee et al. teach at least one touch electrode (inherent in ISU, See paragraph [0056]) on the encapsulation unit 40 (Figures 1-2B, pages 3-5, paragraphs [0048]-[0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device structure as taught by Kim et al. with the display device having at least one touch electrode on the encapsulation unit as taught by Lee et al. to improve reliability (page 1, paragraph [0006]).
In regard to claim 2, Kim et al. teach a dam D laterally surrounding a periphery of the pixel area DA, wherein at least one of the data line DL and a scan line SL overlaps the dam D (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 3, Kim et al. teach a pad (See Figures 5 and 7) disposed on opposite sides of the see-through area TH, wherein at least one of the data line DL and the scan line SL is electrically connected to the pad (Figures 1, 3, 5, 7 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 4, Kim et al. teach a portion of at least one of the data line DL and the scan line SL is curved in the routing area NDA2 adjacent to the see-through area TH (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]). In regard to curved, change only in form, proportions, or degree or substitution of equivalent, doing substantially the same thing in the same way by substantially the same means with better results is not such an invention as will sustain a patent. Higley v. Brenner, 387 F.2d 855, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 290 (1967).
In regard to claim 5, Kim et al. teach the routing area NDA2 overlapping the curved portion of the data line DL or the scan line SL (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]). In regard to curved, change only in form, proportions, or degree or substitution of equivalent, doing substantially the same thing in the same way by substantially the same means with better results is not such an invention as will sustain a patent. Higley v. Brenner, 387 F.2d 855, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 290 (1967).
In regard to claim 7, Kim et al. teach the see-through area TH being an area where a camera module is disposed (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 7, Lee et al. teach a touch panel ISU disposed at the pixel area DA, the see-through area MH, and the routing area PA (Figures 1-2B, pages 3-5, paragraphs [0048]-[0083]).
In regard to claim 8, Kim et al. teach the pixel area DA including a plurality of sub-pixels including the organic light emitting element OLED, wherein the pixel area DA includes the overcoating layer 209 and at least one of a bank 212 and a spacer or both, and wherein the see-through area TH does not include the overcoating layer 209, the bank 212, and the spacer (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 9, Kim et al. teach the pixel area DA including the overcoating layer 209 and at least one of a bank 212 and a spacer or both, and wherein at least one of the overcoating layer, 209 the bank 212 and the spacer are extended to the see-through area TH (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 10, Kim et al. teach the flexible substrate 100 being composed of a first polyimide substrate, a substrate insulating layer, and a second polyimide substrate (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 16, Kim et al. teach a high-potential voltage supply line (See Figure 5) at a non-pixel area NDA1 of the flexible substrate 100 (Figures 1, 3, 5 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 17, Kim et al. teach the see-through area TH does not include the second electrode 223 (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 18, Kim et al. teach wherein one of the driving transistor Td and the switching transistor Ts includes an active layer A1/A2, and wherein the active layer A1 of one of the driving transistor Td and the switching transistor Ts includes at least one of an amorphous semiconductor material, a polycrystalline semiconductor material, and an oxide semiconductor material (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 19, Kim et al. teach the see-through area TH including an emission layer (inherent in 222) (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 20, Kim et al. teach the organic light emitting element including a hole transport layer HTL, an emission layer (inherent in 222) and an electron transport layer ETL and is disposed at the see-through area TH (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 21, Kim et al. teach at least one of the hole transport layer HTL, the emission layer (inherent in 222) and the electron transport layer ETL disposed at the see-through area TH (Figures 1, 3 and 16-17, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0029]-[0104]).
In regard to claim 33 and the touch electrodes (inherent in ISU, See paragraph [0056]) having different intervals in the routing area PA each other (Figures 1-2B, pages 3-5, paragraphs [0048]-[0083]), change only in form, proportions, or degree or substitution of equivalent, doing substantially the same thing in the same way by substantially the same means with better results is not such an invention as will sustain a patent. Higley v. Brenner, 387 F.2d 855, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 290 (1967).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 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.
Claims 12-15 ae objected to as being dependent upon objected claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to display devices:
Ciou et al. (US 2015/0169090 A1) Ka et al. (US 2019/0304366 A1)
Park et al. (US 2019/0319212 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am 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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
IMS
October 8, 2026
/IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
