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 .
Obviousness Type Double Patenting Rejection
1. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
2. Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5, 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12268054 in view of Lee (US 20200006701 A1).
See the comparison bellow:
Patent No: 12268054
1. A display panel, comprising: a substrate, having, a display area, and a non-display area disposed adjacent to the display area; a plurality of light-emitting units, arranged on the display area; a blocking structure, arranged on the non-display area of the substrate, wherein the blocking structure is a protruding structure; a conductive pattern, disposed between the blocking structure and the substrate; and an encapsulation layer, extending from the display area to the non-display area, and comprising an organic layer and a first inorganic layer, wherein a portion of the organic layer is disposed between the blocking structure and the first inorganic layer.
2. The display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein in a cross section of the display panel, the portion of the organic layer has a first thickness at a first end of the blocking structure and a second thickness at a second end of the blocking structure, wherein the first end is closer to the display area than the second end, and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness.
3. The display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein in a cross section of the display panel, the portion of the organic layer has two separated portions.
4. The display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer further comprises a second inorganic layer,
the second inorganic layer is disposed under the organic layer, and the first inorganic layer contacts the second inorganic layer on the blocking structure.
5. The display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the blocking structure has a first end and a second end relative to the first end in a cross section of the display panel, and the first end and the second end have different angles relative to a surface of the substrate.
Claim 8. wherein the blocking structure has a maximum width and a maximum thickness in a cross section of the display panel, and a ratio of the maximum width to the maximum thickness is greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 15.
Claim 9
Claim 10
Current Application 19063328
1. An electronic device, comprising: a substrate, having a first area and a second area disposed adjacent to the first area; a plurality of light-emitting units, arranged on the first area; a blocking structure, arranged on the second area of the substrate; a conductive pattern, disposed between the blocking structure and the substrate, wherein in a cross section of the electronic device, the conductive pattern overlapping with the blocking structure; and an encapsulation layer, extending from the first area to the second area, and comprising an organic layer and a first inorganic layer, wherein a portion of the organic layer is disposed between the blocking structure and the first inorganic layer.
2. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the cross section of the electronic device, the portion of the organic layer has a first thickness at a first end of the blocking structure and a second thickness at a second end of the blocking structure, wherein the first end is closer to the first area than the second end, and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness.
3. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cross section of the electronic device, the portion of the organic layer has two separated portions.
4. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer further comprises a second inorganic layer,
the second inorganic layer is disposed under the organic layer, and the first inorganic layer contacts the second inorganic layer on the blocking structure.
5. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the blocking structure has a first end and a second end relative to the first end in the cross section of the electronic device, and the first end and the second end have different angles relative to a surface of the substrate.
6. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the blocking structure has a maximum width and a maximum thickness in the cross section of the electronic device, and a ratio of the maximum width to the maximum thickness is greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 15.
7. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a top surface of the blocking structure has a recess.
8. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the blocking structure has a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion between the first portion and the second portion, and in the cross section of the electronic device, a maximum thickness of the first portion is different from a maximum thickness of the second portion.
9. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the conductive pattern is electrically floating.
10. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the cross section of the electronic device, the blocking structure directly contacts the conductive pattern.
11. The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the cross section of the electronic device, the blocking structure covers side walls of the conductive pattern.
Although the claims at issue patent are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because except for minor wording and insignificant changes in terminology, each claim limitation of Patent 12268054 reads on the corresponding limitation of the current application except the limitations “ wherein in a cross section of the electronic device, a vertical projection of an end of the conductive pattern on the substrate a vertical projection of the blocking structure on the substrate ”
Lee discloses wherein in a cross section of the electronic device, a vertical projection of an end of the conductive pattern (DL) on the substrate a vertical projection of the blocking structure (G3, see Fig. 15) on the substrate [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patent 12268054 with the teaching Lee, thereby providing a safety and convenient helmet structure for HMD user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
3. 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20200006701 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Lee discloses an electronic device (in Fig. 7), comprising:
a substrate (100, Fig. 7), having a first area (display area DA) and a second area disposed (peripheral area NDA adjacent to the first area ([0097]);
a plurality of light-emitting units (pixels), arranged on the first area (DA);
a blocking structure (G1-G3, see Fig.7, 15), arranged on the second area of the substrate (first groove G3, a transmission path may also be effectively blocked by using an organic material also with respect to the groove 3) ([0094-0097], Fig. 15);
a conductive pattern (DL), disposed between the blocking structure and the substrate (100),
wherein in a cross section of the electronic device, a vertical projection of an end of the conductive pattern (DL) on the substrate a vertical projection of the blocking structure (G3, see Fig. 15) on the substrate [0108]);
and an encapsulation layer (300), and comprising an organic layer, extending from the first area (DA) to the second area (NDA), and comprising an organic layer (320) and a first inorganic layer (310) ( [0082-0084, 0094, 0097]), a portion of the organic layer(320) is disposed between the blocking structure(G3) and the first inorganic layer(330)(see Fig. 7 and [0082, 0094]).
Regarding claims 3:
Lee discloses, wherein in a cross section of the display panel, the portion of the organic layer (320) has two separated portions (i.e. portion on NDA a portion on DA) (see Lee 0097, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4:
Lee discloses wherein the encapsulation layer (300) further comprises a second inorganic layer (310), the second inorganic layer is disposed under the organic layer(320) (see Lee, Fig. 7,310, [ 0099]), and the first inorganic layer (310) contacts the second inorganic layer on blocking structure (G2) (see Lee, Fig. 7; [0097, 0099]).
Regarding claim 5:
Lee discloses wherein the blocking structure (G1) has a first end and a second end relative to the first end in a cross section of the electronics device, and the first end and the second end have different angles relative to a surface of the substrate (see Lee, Fig. 7, [0097]).
Regarding claim 7:
Lee discloses wherein a top surface of the blocking structure has a recess (see Lee Fig. 7, [0097]).
Regarding claim 8:
Lee discloses wherein the blocking structure has a first portion (G1), a second portion (G2), and a third portion between the first portion (dotted circile, See Fig. 6) and the second portion, and in a cross section of the display panel, a maximum thickness of the first portion is different from a maximum thickness of the second portion also see Fig. (see Lee Fig. 7, [0097]).
Regarding claim 9:
Lee discloses wherein the conductive pattern (DL) is electrically floating ([0094-0097]).
Regarding claim 10:
Lee discloses wherein in the cross section of the electronic device, the blocking structure (660 or G1 or G2 in PA, see Fig. 3, 5) directly contacts the conductive pattern (DLL) ([0083-0084], [0094-0097]).
Regarding claim 11:
Lee discloses wherein in the cross section of the electronic device, the blocking structure covers side walls of the conductive pattern ([0083-0084], see Fig. 3).
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.
5. Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200006701 A1) and in view of Seo (US 20200067017 A1)
Regarding claim 2:
Lee does not specifically disclose wherein in the cross section of the electronic device, the portion of the organic layer has a first thickness at a first end of the blocking structure and a second thickness at a second end of the blocking structure , wherein the first end is closer to the first area than the second end, and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness.
Lee in view of Seo discloses wherein in the cross section of the electronic device, the portion of the organic layer (520, see Fig. 5 ) has a first thickness at a first end of the blocking structure (G1) and a second thickness at a second end of the blocking structure (G1), wherein the first end is closer to the first area (DA) than the second end, and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness (see Seo, Fig. 5, [0069-0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Seo, thereby providing high efficient data transmission in the display device.
Regarding claim 6:
Note that Lee in view of Seo discloses wherein the blocking structure has a maximum width and a maximum thickness in the cross section of the electronic device (see Seo, Fig. 5, [0069-0070]).
But Lee does not specifically discloses the “a ratio of the maximum width to the maximum thickness is greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 15 as recited in claim 6. However, this limitations are obvious in the system of Lee. Lee discloses a ratio of the distance to a maximum thickness of the blocking structure (see Fig. 7) (see Lee, 0063-0067]). It is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught range weight percentages meeting, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed range; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention). However, if the reference’s disclosed range is so broad as to encompass a very large number of possible distinct compositions, this might present a situation analogous to the obviousness of a species when the prior art broadly discloses a genus. Id. See also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); MPEP § 2144.08. In this configuration the system would provide an accurate data transmission in the display device.
Responds to Applicant’s argument
6. Applicant’s argument filed on 03/04/2026 has been considered but are not persuasive. More specifically the Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the limitations “a vertical…blocking structure.
In responds the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s point of view. Note that limitations are explicitly teaches in Lee’s reference. Lee discloses Lee discloses wherein in a cross section of the electronic device, a vertical projection of an end of the conductive pattern (DL) on the substrate a vertical projection of the blocking structure (G3, see Fig. 15) on the substrate [0108]).
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiry
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Shaheda Abdin whose telephone number is (571) 270-1673.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LunYi Lao could be reached at (571) 272-7671. 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 PAIR system, see http://pari-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.
/SHAHEDA A ABDIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights