DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/927697, filed on 07/13/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024, 12/27/2024 and 01/19/2025 was filed and considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “peripheral portion” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a peripheral portion”, “a first peripheral portion”, “a second peripheral portion”, “a third peripheral portion” that is not disclosed in the original specification. The adding the such limitation may change the scope of the invention and adding a new matter as well.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear and confusing how and where the peripheral portion is in a display device. Although claim 1 recites “a peripheral portion adjacent the transmission portion”, it is not clear which transmission portion is since its transmission portion can be either a display area DA or a sensor area SA.
Appropriate correction the claimed language is required.
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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al., US 2017/0162111 A1, in view of Jung et al., US 2019/0130822 A1.
Re claim 11, Kang et al. disclose a display device 1 (figs 1, 2 and 4-5) comprising:
. a substrate 100 comprising a display area DA1 comprising a plurality of main pixels Px1.
. a sensor area DA2 comprising a plurality of auxiliary pixels Px2 and a plurality of transmission portions OLED2
. a plurality of wirings DL/SL in first and second directions and arranged along edges of the plurality of transmission portions and electrically connecting the plurality of auxiliary pixels (fig. 5)
Kang et al., however, do not disclose the plurality of wrings comprises a plurality of first directional wirings including a first extending portion extending in a first direction and a first inclined portion inclined to the first direction, and a plurality of second directional wirings including a second extending portion extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and a second inclined portion inclined to the second direction. Jung et al. do disclose a wiring adjacent to a transmission portion 12242 having extending portion in first and second directions and inclined extension portions (e.g., inclined wire portion) (see fig. 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an extension wiring over the Kang et al. wiring, as shown by Jung et al., for wiring connection purposes.
Re claim 12, wherein each transmission portion of the plurality of transmission portions has a polygonal shape in plan view (Jung et al., fig 12).
Re claim 13, although Kang et al. transmission portions are not an octagonal shape in a plan view, it would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an octagonal shaped transmission portions since the examiner takes Office Notice of the equivalence of an octagonal shape and a polygonal shape of a transmission portion for their use in the display art and the selection of any of these known shape equivalents for displaying would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 14, wherein a sensor device overlapping with the plurality of transmission portions in a thickness direction of the substrate, the sensor device is to sense infrared light, visible light, and/or sound (Kang et al., [0062]).
Re claim 15, wherein the plurality of first directional wirings comprise a first wiring CL1 to apply an initialization voltage into auxiliary pixels Px2 arranged in the first direction from among the plurality of auxiliary pixels, a second wiring SL to apply a first scan signal into the auxiliary pixels arranged in the first direction, a third wiring SL (next row) to apply a second scan signal into the auxiliary pixels arranged in the first direction; and a fourth wiring to apply an emission control signal T1’ into the auxiliary pixels arranged in the first direction (Kang et al., figs 5, 7).
Re claim 16, wherein the plurality of second directional wirings comprise a fifth wiring DL to apply a data voltage into auxiliary pixels Px2 arranged in the second direction from among the plurality of auxiliary pixels; and a sixth wiring DL1 to apply a first power into the auxiliary pixels arranged in the second direction (Kang et al., figs 5-7).
Re claims 17-18, wherein in an area in which the auxiliary pixels arranged in the first direction are arranged, the second wiring, the third wiring, and the fourth wiring are on the substrate, a first insulation layer is on the second wiring, the third wiring, and the fourth wiring, and the first wiring is on the first insulation layer and in the edges of the plurality of transmission portions, the second wiring and the fourth wiring are on the substrate, and the first wiring and the third wiring are on the first insulation layer. (Kang et al., fig 8).
Re claim 19, wherein an area of one of the plurality of transmission portions is larger than a light emitting area of one of the plurality of auxiliary pixels (Kang et al., fig 5).
Re claim 20, wherein the plurality of first directional wirings and the plurality of second directional wirings overlap each other in a thickness direction of the substrate in the at least two bending portions (Kang et al., figs5, 8).
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 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-6, 17, 18 and 21-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application and the patent disclose a same display device including a same arrangement of the plurality of wirings in a sensor area as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights