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.
Claims 2, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the terms "first and second light-emitting elements" and "third light-emitting elements" lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 introduces "light emitting devices." The shift to claiming "elements" renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Additionally, the phrase "wherein a first direction and a second direction that intersect each other are defined" defines the geometry passively rather than physically tying those directional vectors to the structural components of the display device itself, thus, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, the term “light-emitting elements” at the end of the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. The preamble of the claim expressly defines the structures as “a plurality of first and second light emitting devices.” The shift in terminology renders the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Regarding claim 20, the preamble contains a grammatical error ("An electronic device for provide an image").
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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2019/0064980, hereinafter "Oh") in view of Kwon (US 2020/0089352, hereinafter "Kwon").
With respect to Claim 1, Oh teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel including a plurality of first light emitting devices, a plurality of second light emitting devices, a plurality of third light emitting devices (Oh: Para. [0125], Fig. 9, red, green, and blue sub pixels R, G, B);
and a pixel defining layer separating the first, second, and third light emitting devices from each other (Oh: Para. [0125], Fig. 10, bank BNK enclosing/dividing the sub pixels);
and an input sensing part disposed on the display panel (Oh: Para. [0036], Fig. 10, touch screen panel 113 including touch sensors TS disposed on the bank BNK),
wherein the input sensing part includes:
at least one sensing part including a plurality of branch portions overlapping the pixel defining layer (Oh: Para. [0131], first touch electrode unit Tx having mesh patterns disposed on/overlapping the bank BNK);
and a connection pattern disposed under the at least one sensing part (Oh: Para. [0092] – [0093, Fig. 5A-5B, connection pattern Rx_C formed on a different layer under an insulating layer and electrically connected through contact holes).
Oh fails to expressly disclose:
wherein a width of each of the plurality of branch portions is greater than a width of the connection pattern.
However, Kwon discloses:
wherein a width of each of the plurality of branch portions is greater than a width of the connection pattern (Kwon: Para. [0054] – [0055], Fig. 3, bridge electrode 140 having an extension portion 142 and expanded portions 145, wherein the extension portion 142 has a width strictly smaller than that of the expanded portions and the corresponding sensing electrodes).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Oh, to incorporate an extension portion having a reduced width, as taught by Kwon, in order to suppress a parasitic capacitance at the intersection overlap and prevent a sensitivity degradation of the touch sensor (Kwon: Para. [0060]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Kwon, as applied above, and further in view of Akimoto (US 2018/0039360, hereinafter "Akimoto").
With respect to Claim 2, Oh and Kwon fail to expressly disclose wherein the width of the sensing part varies dynamically based on unequal distances between first, second, and third light-emitting elements.
However, Akimoto discloses varying the lengths and widths of mesh openings based on asymmetrical sub-pixel spacing, where the number of first, second, and third subpixels within a single mesh opening are unequal (Akimoto: Para. [0078], Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Oh and Kwon, to adapt the mesh to asymmetrical subpixel layouts, as taught by Akimoto, in order to make viewing-angle dependence of chromaticity uniform across the panel (Akimoto: Para. [0085]).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Kwon, and further in view of Jung (US 2022/0187977, hereinafter "Jung").
With respect to Claim 15, the combination of Oh and Kwon discloses the display device of claim 1.
Oh and Kwon fail to expressly disclose wherein during touch periods, a user’s touch and a touch operation of a touch pen are alternately performed, and a driving frequency of the display panel and a driving frequency of the touch pen are different from each other.
However, Jung discloses a user’s touch and a touch operation of a touch pen are alternately performed, and touch pen operating at a driving frequency different from the display panel’s touch driving frequency (Jung: Para. [0092], [0099]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Oh and Kwon, to incorporate time-divisional driving, as taught by Jung, in order to accurately since multiple input types within the same frame while avoiding frequency interference between the different touch driving signals.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Kwon, and further in view of Zheng (US 2024/0324390, hereinafter "Zheng").
With respect to Claim 16, the combination of Oh and Kwon discloses the display device of claim 1.
Oh and Kwon fail to expressly disclose a first display area having light transmission greater than a second display area, with dummy sensing parts disposed therein.
However, Zheng discloses a first display area having a light transmittance greater than a second display area, achieved by removing pixel units to form light transmissive areas, and routing dummy sensing parts within this zone (Zheng: Para. [0033], [0043]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Oh and Kwon, to incorporate a high-transmittance area utilizing dummy patterns, as taught by Zheng, in order to ensure normal touch and display functions while accommodating under-panel components and increasing transmission percentages (Zheng: Para. [0033], [0043]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Kwon, and further in view of Seger (US 2023/0168717, hereinafter "Seger").
With respect to Claim 20, the combination of Oh and Kwon teaches the display device limitations equivalently rejected for claim 1 above, specifically the display panel having light emitting devices separated by a pixel defining layer, and the input sensing part having branch portions overlapping the pixel defining layer that are wider than an underlying connection pattern.
Oh and Kwon fail to expressly disclose the electronic device comprising a touch pen, and wherein the input sensing part sensing input by the touch pen.
However, Seger discloses an electronic device comprising a touch pen, and wherein the input sensing part sensing input by the touch pen (Seger: Para. [0197], Fig. 19-20, a pen touch proximal to the electrodes).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Oh and Kwon, to incorporate a touch pen and configure the input sensing part to sense input by the touch pen, as taught by Seger, in order to provide the user with a more precise mode of input alongside standard finger touch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-14 and 17-19 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.
Regarding Claim 14, An teaches a shielding layer receiving a ground voltage, but it explicitly places this layer in a lower routing metal layer (e.g., M4 or M5 beneath planarization layers) rather than physically coplanar with the actual light-emitting anode layer. The prior art fails to teach a grounded shielding layer having a width greater than that of the data line and disposed on the same layer as the first electrode (the sub-pixel anode). Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 3 and 17, Shih teaches staggered sub-pixel arrangements generally, but it lacks the exact geometric structure claimed. The prior art fails to teach the specific staggered, paired-column sub-pixel topography combined with the dynamic width tracking of the sensing part “disposed between” those specific groups. Claim 17 is an independent claim and would be allowable once the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) defects are cured. Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim. Additionally, claims 4-13 are objected to by virtue of their claim dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights