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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11-12 and 16-20 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.
Claim 16 recites “…wherein a thickness of each of the partition walls is greater than a spaced distance between a partition wall of the partition walls facing one emission area of the emission areas and a light blocking opening of the light blocking openings above the emission area on a plane.” Since there more than one way in which an object can be considered for thickness it is unclear how the Applicant intends to determine the thickness of the partition wall. Although the limitation is taken directly from [0021] of the specification of the Applicant’s publication, the respective description of Fig. 8 and 9 discuss the vertical length of the partition wall (not thickness) being greater than the spaced distance ([0015][0134][0139][0147][0150][0154][0159]). Therefore it appears that the Applicant intends for the thickness to be the interpreted as “vertical length.” However a measurement of length is not a measurement of thickness, if the Applicant does intend for the “vertical length” to be interpreted as the “thickness” then the claim language should reflect the intentions and be amended accordingly. If this interpretation is not the intentions of the Applicant then the claim language should be amended clearly to reflect any other interpretation as desired.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "each of a plurality of first bridge patterns” in line 3 and “each of a plurality of second bridge patterns” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “first bridge patterns” and “second bridge patterns” were never introduced in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2020/0235186) in view of Son (US 2022/0011904).
Regarding clam 1, Jung teaches A display device comprising: a display panel comprising a plurality of emission areas (Figs. 9A and 10 pixel area PXA) and non-emission areas(Figs. 9A and 10 non-pixel area NPXA), the display panel comprising a plurality of light emitting elements respectively disposed on the emission areas ((Figs. 9A and 10 pixel area comprising OLED) and an encapsulation layer configured to cover the light emitting elements(Figs. 9A and 10 insulation encapsulation layer ECL); a light blocking layer disposed on the display panel and having light blocking openings above the emission areas, respectively(Figs. 9A and 10 light shielding layer BY); and an input sensing layer disposed between the display panel and the light blocking layer (with reference of Fig. 4 input sensing unit ISU comprises IS-IL2, IS-CL2, IS-IL1, IS-CL1, where Figs. 9-10 have light shielding layer BY with IS-IL1/IS-IL2 between BY and encapsulation layer ECL), wherein the input sensing layer comprises: a first sensor conductive layer disposed on the encapsulation layer (Figs. 9A and 10 connecting pattern CP2); a second sensor conductive layer on the first sensor conductive layer (Figs. 9A and 10 second sensing patterns SP2); a sensor insulating layer (IS-IL1) disposed between the encapsulation layer and the second sensor conductive layer(Figs. 9A and 10 second sensing patterns SP2 and insulation encapsulation layer ECL); and partition walls connected to the second sensor conductive layer and passing through at least a portion of the sensor insulating layer(Figs. 9A and 10 show protruding portion CH of second sensing patterns SP2 passing though sensor insulating layer IS-IL1). Although Jung teaches the limitations as discussed above he does not explicitly wherein each of the partition walls comprises a first surface facing one of the emission areas and a second surface that is opposite to the first surface.
However in the field of manufacturing a sensing display panel, Son teaches wherein each of the partition walls comprises a first surface facing one of the emission areas and a second surface that is opposite to the first surface (In Figs. 8 and 10 Son shows an input sensing layer ISL disposed on top of and encapsulation layer TFE where the ISL includes a first conductive layer CL1 and second conductive layer CL2 and an insulation layer IL-C. Fig. 8 shows conductive layer CL2 having sensor portions SP1 having protruding portion contact hole HL. Figs. 8, 10 and 14 show a first contact hole HL and a second contact hole HL opposite the first contact hole.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Jung with the method of manufacturing as taught by Son. This combination would provide a device with improved display quality as taught by Son [0026].
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches wherein the partition walls are configured to surround the emission areas respectively (Fig. 9A and 10).
Regarding claim 3, Jung teaches wherein the partition walls are in contact with a top surface of the encapsulation layer (Fig. 9A and 10 shows that the partition walls CH are in contact with the encapsulation layer by being in contact with the second connecting patterns CP2).
Regarding claim 4, Jung teaches wherein the sensor insulating layer comprises a plurality of layers, and wherein the plurality of layers comprise: a first sensor insulating layer disposed between the encapsulation layer and the first sensor conductive layer(IS-IL1); and a second sensor insulating layer disposed between the encapsulation layer and the second sensor conductive layer and disposed on the first sensor insulating layer (IS-IL2), wherein the partition walls pass through at least the second sensor insulating layer (Fig. 9A and 10 shows that the partition walls CH passing though IS-IL2 and IS-IL11).
Regarding claim 5, Jung teaches wherein the partition walls further pass through at least a portion of the first sensor insulating layer (Fig. 9A and 10 shows that the partition walls CH passing though IS-IL2 and IS-IL11).
Regarding claim 6, Jung teaches wherein the partition walls are in contact with a top surface of the encapsulation layer (Fig. 9A and 10 shows that the partition walls CH are in contact with the encapsulation layer by being in contact with the second connecting patterns CP2).
Regarding claim 7, Jung teaches wherein the second sensor insulating layer comprises at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, and aluminum oxide ([0083]).
Regarding claim 8, Jung teaches wherein the second sensor insulating layer comprises an organic insulating material ([0082])
Regarding claim15, Jung teaches comprising an optical layer disposed on the input sensing layer and comprising a plurality of color filters respectively overlapping the plurality of emission areas (color filter layer CFY).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2020/0235186) in view of Son (US 2022/0011904) and Lius (US 2025/0212668).
Regarding claim 14, Jung in view of Son teaches the limitations as discussed above, but fail to teach wherein the second sensor conductive layer and the partition wall comprise the same material.
However in the field of manufacturing a sensing display module, Lius teaches an electronic device, having a sensing layer 24 disposed on the encapsulation layer 22. Where the sensing layer has a metal layer M1 (conductive layer ) having connecting part CP1 disposed in an insulation layer IN1 and second metal layer M2 (second conductive layer ) having connection part CP2 passing through the second insulation layer IN2 and the first insulation layer IN1. As discussed above the connecting part CP2 of the second metal layer M2 would be interpreted as the partition wall because he passes through the insulation layers. Lius goes on to teach wherein the second sensor conductive layer and the partition wall comprise the same material ([0062][0077] teach metal layer M2 comprises connecting part CP2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Jung with the method of manufacturing as taught by Son and the method of manufacturing the conductive layer as taught by Lius. This combination would provide a device with improved display quality as taught by Son [0026].
Claims 9-10 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2020/0235186) in view of Son (US 2022/0011904).
Regarding claim 9, Jung in view of Son teach the limitations as discussed above and Jung discloses a distance between the light shielding BY and the connecting patterns CP2 as shown in Figs. 8 and 10, however combination does not teach wherein a spaced distance between a partition wall of the partition walls facing one emission area of the emission areas and a light blocking opening of the light blocking openings above the emission area on a plane is 0.5 μm or less.
However it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a spaced distance between a partition wall of the partition walls facing one emission area of the emission areas and a light blocking opening of the light blocking openings above the emission area on a plane is 0.5 μm or less, since the applicant has not disclosed that the range of the distance being 0.5 μm or less solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any distance based on the designer.
Regarding claim 10, Regarding claim 9, , Jung in view of Son teach the limitations as discussed above and Jung discloses a length of a first surface of the partition wall as shown in Figs. 8 and 10, however combination does not teach wherein the length of the first surface is greater than the spaced distance.
However it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a wherein the length of the first surface is greater than the spaced distance, since the applicant has not disclosed that the length of the first surface solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with length based on the designer.
Regarding claim 13, Jung in view of Son teach the limitations as discussed above but fail to teach wherein an angle defined between the first surface and a top surface of the encapsulation layer is an acute angle.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have an angle defined between the first surface and a top surface of the encapsulation layer is an acute angle since the applicant has not disclosed that an acute angle solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any angle desired by the designer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE L MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights