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
During a conversation with Jun-Young E. Jeon on 7/16/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of the display device, claim(s) 1-15.
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claim(s) 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim(s) 1-15, drawn to a display device, classified in H10K 59/131.
II. Claim(s) 16-20, drawn to a method of fabricating a display device, classified in H10H 29/01.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as product made and process of making. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make other and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, as opposed to etching the inorganic insulating layer along the photoresist, the product as claimed can be practiced by another materially different process, such as chemical vapor deposition or sputtering.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.163) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/14/2024. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
America Invents Act
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-8, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0246710 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Woo et al., teaches a display device comprising: a main display area (DA, display area, ¶ [0050]-¶ [0060]; see at least Figs. 2, 7-12), and a first sub-display area (DA2-1, 1st divided display area, ¶ [0057]) and a second sub-display area (DA2-2, 2nd divided display area) surrounded by the main display area (DA) and located adjacent to each other; a plurality of pixel electrodes (plurality of Ada2-2, anode, ¶ [0087]) in the main display area (DA) and spaced from each other; a plurality of first sub-pixel electrodes (ACL3-1, an anode connecting member, ¶ [0096]) in the first sub-display area (DA2-1) and spaced from each other; a plurality of first sub-pixel electrodes (Arda2-1c, anodes, ¶ [0186]) in the first sub-display area (DA2-1) and connected to the first sub-pixel electrodes (ACL3-1) via a first bridge electrode (of Arda2-1c); a first pixel defining layer (163) in the main display area (DA) and the first sub-display area (DA2-1), and having a plurality of openings (openings of 163) therein that overlaps the plurality of pixel electrodes (Ada2-2), the plurality of first sub-pixel electrodes (ACL3-1), and the plurality of first sub-pixel electrodes (Arda2-1c), respectively; a plurality of second sub-pixel electrodes (2nd Ada2-2) and second copy pixel electrodes (Arda2-1c, copy anodes, ¶ [0228]) in the second sub-display area (DA2-2) and spaced from each other; a plurality of connection patterns (TCL3, connection wire, ¶ [0228]) in the second sub-display area (DA2-2), and each connected to one of the plurality of second sub-pixel electrodes (2nd Ada2-2) and one of the second copy pixel electrodes (Arda2-1c); and a second pixel defining layer (400) on the connection patterns (TCL3), and having a plurality of openings (opening in 400) therein that overlaps the plurality of second sub-pixel electrodes (2nd Ada2-2) and second copy pixel electrodes (Arda2-1c), respectively, wherein the second pixel defining layer (400) comprises a valley portion around a second sub-pixel electrode of the plurality of second sub-pixel electrodes (2nd Ada2-2) and a second copy pixel electrode of the second copy pixel electrodes (Arda2-1c) connected to each other through a connection pattern from among the plurality of connection patterns (TCL3) (as clearly depicted in Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 2, Woo et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the connection pattern (TCL3) is recessed inward from sidewalls of the valley portion and an opening from among the openings of the second pixel defining layer (400) (as depicted in Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 3, Woo et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of connection patterns (TCL3) are separated from each other (per each pixel) with respect to the valley portion of the second pixel defining layer (400).
Regarding Claim 4, Woo et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the connection pattern (TCL3) is in contact with a side surface of each of the second sub-pixel electrode (2nd Ada2-2) and the second copy pixel electrode (Arda2-1c).
Regarding Claim 5, Woo et al., teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein the connection pattern (TCL3) is in contact with a part of a top surface of each of the second sub-pixel electrode (2nd Ada2-2) and the second copy pixel electrode (Arda2-1c).
Regarding Claim 6, Woo et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a common electrode (cathode, ¶ [0066]; Fig. 13) on the main display area (DA), the first sub-display area (DA2-1), and the second sub-display area (DA2-2), wherein the common electrode (cathode, Fig. 13) is in the valley portion of the second pixel defining layer (400) in the second sub-display area (DA2-2).
Regarding Claim 7, Woo et al., teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the common electrode (cathode, Fig. 13) is not in contact with the connection pattern (TCL3).
Examiner notes that the phrase “the common electrode is not in contact with” does not recite a positive limitation and instead attempts to claim the disclosed invention by excluding what the applicants did not disclose or invent, rather than distinctly and particularly pointing out what the applicants did disclose or invent. Essentially this claim language fails to provide any structural element or concrete component and therefore is improper [MPEP 2173.05(i)].
Regarding Claim 8, Woo et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first pixel defining layer (163 [Wingdings font/0xE0] organic insulation film, ¶ [0217]) comprises an organic insulating material, and the second pixel defining layer (400 [Wingdings font/0xE0] inorganic encapsulation layer, ¶ [0249]) comprises an inorganic insulating material.
Regarding Claim 13, Woo et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a first interlayer insulating layer (of 400, inorganic layer) in the main display area (DA), the first sub-display area (DA2-1), and the second sub-display area (DA2-2); and a first insulating layer (of 163, organic) on the first interlayer insulating layer and in the main display area (DA) and the first sub-display area (DA2-1), wherein the first insulating layer comprises an organic insulating material, and the first interlayer insulating layer comprises an inorganic insulating material (based on materials of 400 & 163).
Regarding Claim 14, Woo et al., teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein the first insulating layer (of 163) does not overlap the connection pattern, the second sub-pixel electrode (2nd Ada2-2) and the second copy pixel electrode (Arda2-1c).
Examiner notes that the phrase “first insulating layer does not overlap” does not recite a positive limitation and instead attempts to claim the disclosed invention by excluding what the applicants did not disclose or invent, rather than distinctly and particularly pointing out what the applicants did disclose or invent. Essentially this claim language fails to provide any structural element or concrete component and therefore is improper [MPEP 2173.05(i)].
Regarding Claim 15. The display device of claim 1, wherein the first sub-pixel electrodes (ACL3-1), the first sub-pixel electrodes (Arda2-1c), and the first bridge electrode in the first sub-display area (DA2-1) are integrated.
Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claim(s) 9-12 are objected 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
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Woo et al.,) suggests a display device comprising: a main display area, and a first sub-display area and a second sub-display area surrounded by the main display area and located adjacent to each other; a plurality of pixel electrodes in the main display area and spaced from each other; a plurality of first sub-pixel electrodes in the first sub-display area and spaced from each other; a plurality of first copy pixel electrodes in the first sub-display area and connected to the first sub-pixel electrodes via a first bridge electrode; a first pixel defining layer in the main display area and the first sub-display area, and having a plurality of openings therein that overlaps the plurality of pixel electrodes, the plurality of first sub-pixel electrodes, and the plurality of first copy pixel electrodes, respectively; a plurality of second sub-pixel electrodes and second copy pixel electrodes in the second sub-display area and spaced from each other; a plurality of connection patterns in the second sub-display area, and each connected to one of the plurality of second sub-pixel electrodes and one of the second copy pixel electrodes; and a second pixel defining layer on the connection patterns, and having a plurality of openings therein that overlaps the plurality of second sub-pixel electrodes and second copy pixel electrodes, respectively, wherein the second pixel defining layer comprises a valley portion around a second sub-pixel electrode of the plurality of second sub-pixel electrodes and a second copy pixel electrode of the second copy pixel electrodes connected to each other through a connection pattern from among the plurality of connection patterns.
However, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art the display device comprising the various elements as claimed above in combination with the specific limitation of a first bridge pattern extending from the first sub-display area to the second sub-display area, and connected to one of the plurality of second sub-pixel electrodes as set forth in Claim 9.
Claim(s) 10-12 are allowable because of their dependency status from Claim 9.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0285472 A1 to Wang et al., teaches a similarly depicted display device.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights