DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to 02/27/2026.
Claims 1-5,15, and 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 6, 10-11, 14, and 16 are rejected.
Claims 7-9 and 12-13 are objected to.
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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (US Pub. 2023/0247873), hereinafter Kubota.
Regarding claim 6, Kubota discloses a display device comprising: a display area (display portion 120-see fig. 4C and [0112]) and a non-display area (non-display portion 121-see fig. 4C and [0112]); sub-pixels disposed in the display area (see fig. 4C); and a first sub-metal line and a second sub-metal line intersecting the non-display area and the display area and spaced apart from emission areas of the sub-pixels on a plane in the display area (see, for example, fig. 4C-each of the conductive layer 40 is herein equated to a sub-metal line, which extends from non-display portion 121 to display portion 120), wherein the first sub-metal line and the second sub-metal line are disposed on a substrate in a vertical direction (each conductive layer 40 extends in a column direction (herein equated to vertical direction)).
Regarding claim 10, Kubota discloses wherein the second sub-metal line is formed of a plurality of lines (see fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota discloses further comprising: a first metal pad disposed in the non-display area and electrically connected to an end of the first sub-metal line and an end of the second sub-metal line (see fig. 4C-each conductive layer 40 is connected to wiring 50 disposed in the non-display portion 121); and a second metal pad disposed in the non-display area and electrically connected to another end of the first sub-metal line and another end of the second sub-metal line, wherein the display area is disposed between the first metal pad and the second metal pad (each of a pair of portions of the non-display portions 121 between which the display portion 120 is sandwiched is preferably provided with the wiring 50-see [0115]).
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 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Katayama.
Regarding claim 14, Kubota does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the first sub-metal line electrically contacts a cathode of light emitting elements of the sub-pixels.
Katayama is relied upon to teach wherein the first sub-metal line electrically contacts a cathode of light emitting elements of the sub-pixels see, for example, figs. 1A-1B, wherein, auxiliary line 151, disposed to define emission areas of subpixels, is connected to an upper electrode 113 (cathode) of light emitting elements (11R, 11G, and 11B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Katayama with the invention of Kubota such that the metal line electrically contacts a cathode (common electrode) of the light emitting element of the subpixels, as taught by Katayama, which is preferable in terms of inhibition of voltage drop (see [0069]-[0071]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Yeh et al. (US Patent 11,910,654), hereinafter Yeh.
Regarding claim 16, Kubota does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the display device is a head mounted display device.
Yeh is relied upon to teach wherein the display device is a head mounted display device (see fig. 1 with description in [col. 4, ll. 4062]-electronic device 10 may be a device embedded in eyeglasses or other equipment worn on a user’s head such as augment reality (AR) headset and/or virtual reality (VR) headset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yeh with the invention of Kubota such that the display device is a head mounted display device, as taught by Yeh, which constitutes applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 12-13 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.
The limitation “wherein the first sub-metal line is disposed on a pixel defining layer defining the emission areas of the sub-pixels in the display area, and the second sub-metal line is disposed inside of the pixel defining layer”, recited in claim 7, is not taught or suggested by the references of record. Claims 8-9 depend from and recite limitations that further narrow claim 7, and are therefore equally indicated as allowable.
The limitation “wherein the first metal pad further includes a first sub-metal pad and a second sub-metal pad, the end of the first sub-metal line is electrically connected to the first sub-metal pad, the end of the second sub-metal line is electrically connected to the second sub-metal pad, and separate voltages are applied to the first sub-metal pad and the second sub-metal pad”, recited in claim 12, is not taught or suggested by the references of record. Claim 13 depend from and recite limitations that further narrow claim 12, and is therefore equally indicated as allowable.
Claims 1-5 and 15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The references of record fail to teach or suggest “wherein a voltage including a plurality of pulses is applied to the metal line, peaks of successive pulses of the plurality of pulses having creasing voltages at intervals of a step value”, recited in independent claim 1. Claims 2-5 and 15 depend from and recite limitations that further narrow claim 1, and are therefore equally allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/27/2026 (see applicant remarks, pg. 7-9), directed to independent claim 1, have been fully considered but are moot because claim 1 is allowed with current amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 with regards to the rejection of independent claim 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submits that the cited portions of reference Kubota does not appear to disclose at least “a first sub-metal line and a second sub-metal line intersecting the non-display area and the display area and spaced apart from emission areas of the sub-pixels on a plane in the display, wherein the first sub-metal line and the second sub-metal line are disposed on a substrate in a vertical direction.” To buttress this argument, application further states that “in the cited fig. 4C of Kubota, while there appears to be conductive layers 40 (which the Office equates with the first sub-metal line and a second sub-metal line) extending from wires 50, these conductive layers 40 do not appear to overlap one another, and are in fact separated from one another. Indeed, each conductive layer 40 of Kubota appears only to extend in a column direction, and there is no disclosure of the conductive layers 40 being disposed in a vertical direction relative to the substrate.”
The examiner respectively disagrees with applicant for at least the following reasons: the limitation “wherein the first sub-metal line and the second sub-metal line are disposed on a substrate in a vertical direction” is very broad, and there is nothing in the claim language that would warrant “a vertical direction” to be solely interpreted to mean a stacking direction from the substrate (i.e., plan view or orthographic projection). Furthermore, there is nothing in claim 6 that suggests that orthographic projections of the first sub-metal line and the second sub-metal line substrate overlap when viewed from the substrate. The examiner therefore contends that the rejection of claim 6 is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARDIS F AZONGHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7706. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-7:00PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571)272-7776. 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.
/SARDIS F AZONGHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627