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 made in response to applicant’s RESPONSE TO ELECTION REQUIREMENT AND AMENDMENT, filed on 04/03/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species I, as illustrated in figures 8-10 in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has indicated claims 1-15 and 28 readable on the elected Species I on page 1 of the response. Without acquiescing in any way to the Applicant’s such indication, Examiner has agreed to consider claims 1-15 and 28 below. Claims 16-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species II as indicated by the applicant in the RESPONSE TO ELECTION REQUIREMENT, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Since some U.S. applications are not correctly translated from the foreign applications due to, e.g., incorrect gramma, missed punctuations, and etc., it is in the best interest of the patent community that applicant, in his/her normal review and/or rewriting of the disclosure, especially claims and, to take into consideration these editorial situations and make changes as necessary, in order to avoid at least unnecessary 112 issue(s).
Further, note that in the conventional RGB display device, the term “pixel” is generally designated to comprise three sub-pixels, a red sub-pixel, a green sub-pixel, and a blue sub--pixel, in order to make distinct between “pixel” and “sub-pixel”. However, this application uses “PXA1,” “PXA2,” “PXA3,” and “PXA” to designate “first pixel area,” “second pixel area,” “third pixel area,” and “pixel area” to cause confusion. See at least Figs. 9A-9B of this application showing the pixel area PXA comprising the first pixel area PXA1, and the second pixel area PXA2, and the third pixel area PXA3 that causes confusion. It is suggested to clearly define “PXA1” as the first sub-pixel area, “PXA2” as the second sub-pixel area, “PXA3” as the third sub-pixel area, and “PXA” as the pixel area, so as to clearly make a distinct between a pixel and a sub-pixel. See the An et al. reference (US 2023/0004258 A1) cited below, as a reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 1-15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”).
Further note that the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc. (358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) and of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in Ex parte Jung (Appeal No. 2016-008290 (PTAB March 22, 2017)) are frequently cited for guidance on the use of conjunctive and disjunctive claim language. In SuperGuide, the Federal Circuit found that the meaning of “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B.” Further, since the term, “at least one,” can be broadly construed to include “one, two, three, or more/all,” when drafting or amending claims, the Applicant should carefully consider the plain and ordinary meaning of “at least one.” Further, note that the specification is not the measure of invention and limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims. Therefore, when drafting and amending claims in a patent application, the use of the conjunctive “and” or the disjunctive “or” should be carefully considered, as each word of a claim can affect its interpretation and the ultimate validity of the patent. In particular, in claims reciting a selection from a list of elements that follows the phrase “at least one of,” one should consider how to encompass the claim scope intended.
As per claim 1, this claim further recites a limitation, “a transparent electrode electrically connected to at least a portion of the first sensing electrode and the second sensing electrode” in lines 14-15. This limitation is construed as “a single/same transparent electrode electrically connected to both at least a portion of the first sensing electrode and at least a portion of the second sensing electrode,” 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 8 and ¶ [0266] of the corresponding US 2025/0221230 A1, discloses “… The second sensing electrodes SE2 may insulate and cross the first sensing electrodes SE1 …”, i.e., the first sensing electrode SE1 the second sensing electrode SE2 are not electrically connected to each other.
Further, the original disclosure, specifically Figs. 9A-9C, explicitly shows a transparent electrode TPE electrically connected to the first sensing pattern SP1 of the first sensing electrode SE1 and another/different transparent electrode TPE electrically connected to the second sensing pattern SP2 of the second sensing electrode SE2.
However, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose in detail a single/same transparent electrode, the first sensing electrode, and the second sensing electrode all electrically connected to each other or the first sensing electrode and the second sensing electrode electrically connected to each other, as required by the above underlined limitation. Further, see the above bolded note.
Further, note that a person skilled in the mutual-capacitance touch panel/sensor would have readily recognized that the first sensing electrode and the second sensing electrode are not electrically connected to each other as one of the first sensing electrode and the second sensing electrode functions as the touch driving electrode receiving a drive signal and another of the first sensing electrode and the second sensing electrode functions as the touch sensing electrode outputting a sensed signal.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 1, this claim recites a limitation, “a second sensing electrode spaced from the first sensing electrode and a plurality of second sensing patterns” in lines 11-12, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 8 and ¶ [0266] of the corresponding US 2025/0221230 A1, discloses “… The second sensing electrodes SE2 may insulate and cross the first sensing electrodes SE1 …”, i.e., the second sensing electrode SE2 spaced from the first sensing electrode SE1, but not spaced from and a plurality of second sensing patterns SP2 and specifically, not spaced from both the first sensing electrodes SE1 and a plurality of second sensing patterns SP2, as recited in the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, this claim itself does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to the above underlined limitation, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 2-15, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
In addition to claim 4, this claim further recites a limitation, “wherein the transparent electrode is electrically connected to at least a portion of the first sensing electrode and the second sensing electrode through an upper contact hole that passes through the cover insulating layer” in last 3 lines. This limitation is construed as “wherein the single/same transparent electrode is electrically connected to both at least a portion of the first sensing electrode and at least a portion of the second sensing electrode through a single/same upper contact hole that passes through the cover insulating layer,” 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See the discussion in the rejection of claim 1 for “wherein the single/same transparent electrode is electrically connected to both at least a portion of the first sensing electrode and at least a portion of the second sensing electrode.”
Further, the original disclosure, specifically Figs. 9A-9C, explicitly shows a transparent electrode TPE electrically connected to the first sensing pattern SP1 of the first sensing electrode SE1 through an upper contact hole [CH-U] that passes through the insulating layer IS-IL3, as the claimed cover insulating layer. Further, while there is no figure to show a connection between a [[another]] transparent electrode TPE and a second sensing pattern SP2 of the second sensing electrode SE2 through an [[another]] upper contact hole [CH-U], a person skilled in the mutual-capacitance touch panel/sensor would have readily recognized that another transparent electrode TPE is electrically connected to the second sensing pattern SP2 of the second sensing electrode SE2 through another upper contact hole [CH-U] that passes through the insulating layer IS-IL3, as the claimed cover insulating layer.
However, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose in detail “wherein the single/same transparent electrode is electrically connected to both at least a portion of the first sensing electrode and at least a portion of the second sensing electrode through a single/same upper contact hole that passes through the cover insulating layer” of the above underlined limitation. Further, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 5, this claim further recites a limitation, “wherein the transparent electrode overlaps at least a portion of each of the transmission area and the plurality of pixel areas.” This limitation is construed as “wherein the single/same transparent electrode overlaps at least portions of all of the transmission areas and at least portions of all of the plurality of pixel areas,” 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically Figs. 9A-9B, explicitly shows a plurality of transparent electrodes TPEs respectively at a plurality of different locations and a single transparent electrode TPE overlapping at least a portion of a corresponding transmission area TA and at least a portion of a corresponding pixel area PXA. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose in detail “the single/same transparent electrode overlapping at least portions of all of the transmission areas and at least portions of all of the plurality of pixel areas,” of the above underlined limitation. Further, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claims 9-12, this claim further recites a limitation, “wherein each of the first to fourth light emitting stacks comprises at least one emission layer” in last two lines of claim 9. This limitation includes “wherein each of the first to fourth light emitting stacks comprises two, three, or more emission layers,” 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 7, explicitly discloses each of the first to fourth light emitting stacks [ST1-ST4] comprising one emission layer. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose in detail “wherein each of the first to fourth light emitting stacks comprises two, three, or more emission layers,” of the above underlined limitation. Further, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of these claims, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 12, this claim further recites a limitation, “wherein the at least one emission layer in each of the first light emitting stack to the fourth light emitting stack does not overlap the transmission area.” See the above rejection of claim 9 for the feature, “the at least one emission layer in each of the first light emitting stack to the fourth light emitting stack” of the above underlined limitation. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of these claims, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 28, this claim further recites a limitation, “a pixel opening overlapping each of the plurality of pixel areas of a display area” in lines 2-3 and 11-12. These limitations are construed to include a feature, “a single/same pixel opening overlapping all of the plurality of pixel areas in the display area,” 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 9A, discloses a first pixel opening POP1 overlapping a first pixel area PXA1, a second pixel opening POP2 overlapping a second pixel area PXA2, and a third pixel opening POP3 overlapping a third pixel area PXA3, i.e., a pixel opening overlapping a corresponding one pixel area of the plurality of pixel areas. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose in detail the above feature of the above underlined limitation. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. An et al. (US 2023/0004258 A1) discloses a related display device comprising all elements recited in at least claim 1 (see at least Figs. 1, 2C, 5B and 6-11) except for a limitation “a transparent electrode electrically connected to at least a portion of the first sensing electrode and the second sensing electrode” construed as “a transparent electrode electrically connected to at least a portion of the first sensing electrode and at least a portion of the second sensing electrode” and elements recited in at least claim 28 (see at least Figs. 1, 2C, 5B and 6-11) except for a limitation, “a pixel opening overlapping each of the plurality of pixel areas in the display area” construed as “a single/same pixel opening overlapping all pixel areas in the display area.” See the above rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Park et al. (US 2023/0105728 A1) also discloses a related display device comprising a display area including a transmission area, and a non-display area adjacent to the display area; and an input sensor on the display panel and comprising a plurality of conductive patterns (see at least Figs. 4, 6B, 7A.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights