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 .
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10-11, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 41, 41, 4, 41, 31, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 11.182.015 in further view of US 2017.0262109 to Choi, as shown in the chart below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are covering essentially the same subject matter. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application (19/282.986) claim
US Patent 11.182.015 claim
1
1 & 41
3
41
4
4
10
41
11
31
13
33
Where Choi disclose:
a touch pad in the non-active region, the touch pad electrically connected to one or more of the plurality of touch electrodes, and wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region, wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region (see Fig. 1, 2; [0062, 0085]; touch pads 22 electrically connected to touch electrodes; encapsulation unit comprising first through third layers 410, 420, and 430 stacked, where third encapsulation layer 430 extends beyond DA and end of first encapsulation layer 410 in the non-active area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to incorporated the known techniques of Choi to that of US pat ‘015 to predictably provide the encapsulation of the display portions, signals to touch pads to sense a touch to the active area, and first and third encapsulation layers to extend into the non-active area, in order to provide a sealed end to the encapsulation unit.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 19-20, 20, 2, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11.422.058 as shown in the chart below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are covering essentially the same subject matter. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application (19/282.986) claim
US Patent 11.422.058 claim
1
1 & 19-20
3
20
4
2
10
20
Where Choi disclose:
a touch pad in the non-active region, the touch pad electrically connected to one or more of the plurality of touch electrodes, and wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region, wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region (see Fig. 1, 2; [0062, 0085]; touch pads 22 electrically connected to touch electrodes; encapsulation unit comprising first through third layers 410, 420, and 430 stacked, where third encapsulation layer 430 extends beyond DA and end of first encapsulation layer 410 in the non-active area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to incorporated the known techniques of Choi to that of US pat ‘058 to predictably provide the encapsulation of the display portions, signals to touch pads to sense a touch to the active area, and first and third encapsulation layers to extend into the non-active area, in order to provide a sealed end to the encapsulation unit.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-10 and 27-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 19-20, 1&2, 1, 1, 20, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11.693.507 as shown in the chart below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are covering essentially the same subject matter. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application (19/282.986) claim
US Patent 11.693.507 claim
1
1 & 19-20
3
20
4
1 &2
8
1
9
1
10
20
23
1
24
1
25
1
26
1
27
1
Where Choi disclose:
a touch pad in the non-active region, the touch pad electrically connected to one or more of the plurality of touch electrodes, and wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region, wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region (see Fig. 1, 2; [0062, 0085]; touch pads 22 electrically connected to touch electrodes; encapsulation unit comprising first through third layers 410, 420, and 430 stacked, where third encapsulation layer 430 extends beyond DA and end of first encapsulation layer 410 in the non-active area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to incorporated the known techniques of Choi to that of US pat ‘507 to predictably provide the encapsulation of the display portions, signals to touch pads to sense a touch to the active area, and first and third encapsulation layers to extend into the non-active area, in order to provide a sealed end to the encapsulation unit.
Claims 1, 3-4 , 6-10, and 23-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 16, 16, 1&2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 16, 1, 2, 2, and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11.921.950 as shown in the chart below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are covering essentially the same subject matter. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application (19/282.986) claim
US Patent 11.921.950 claim
1
1 & 16
3
16
4
1 & 2
6
1
7
1
8
2
9
2
10
16
23
1
24
2
25
2
26
2
Where Choi disclose:
wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region, wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region (see Fig. 1, 2; [0062, 0085]; touch pads 22 electrically connected to touch electrodes; encapsulation unit comprising first through third layers 410, 420, and 430 stacked, where third encapsulation layer 430 extends beyond DA and end of first encapsulation layer 410 in the non-active area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to incorporated the known techniques of Choi to that of US pat ‘950 to predictably provide the encapsulation of the display portions, and first and third encapsulation layers to extend into the non-active area, in order to provide a sealed end to the encapsulation unit.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 19-20, 20, 2, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12.405.686 as shown in the chart below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are covering essentially the same subject matter. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application (19/282.986) claim
US Patent 12.405.686 claim
1
1 & 15
3
15
4
1 & 5
8
8
10
16
14
2
15
2
18
15
23
1 & 8
25
5 & 8
Where Choi disclose:
wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region, wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region (see Fig. 1, 2; [0062, 0085]; touch pads 22 electrically connected to touch electrodes; encapsulation unit comprising first through third layers 410, 420, and 430 stacked, where third encapsulation layer 430 extends beyond DA and end of first encapsulation layer 410 in the non-active area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to incorporated the known techniques of Choi to that of US pat ‘950 to predictably provide the encapsulation of the display portions, and first and third encapsulation layers to extend into the non-active area, in order to provide a sealed end to the encapsulation unit.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with at least one of the touch electrodes” of claim 8;
“ a bank that defines a light-emitting region of the light- emitting device, wherein the color filters include at least a first color filter and a second color filter, and wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with the bank” of claim 9;
“wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with at least one of the touch electrodes” of claim 24;
“wherein the boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with one of the first bridges and/or one of the second bridges” of claim 25;
“wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with the bank” of claim 26; and
“one of the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with a part of an anode of the light-emitting device not covered by the bank” of claim 27
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with at least one of the touch electrodes” contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey the inventor, at the time of filing was in possession of the claimed invention. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “ a bank that defines a light-emitting region of the light- emitting device, wherein the color filters include at least a first color filter and a second color filter, and wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with the bank” contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey the inventor, at the time of filing was in possession of the claimed invention. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 24, the recitation of “wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with at least one of the touch electrodes” contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey the inventor, at the time of filing was in possession of the claimed invention. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 25, the recitation of “wherein the boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with one of the first bridges and/or one of the second bridges” contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey the inventor, at the time of filing was in possession of the claimed invention. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 26, the recitation of “wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with the bank” contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey the inventor, at the time of filing was in possession of the claimed invention. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 27, the recitation of “one of the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with a part of an anode of the light-emitting device not covered by the bank” contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey the inventor, at the time of filing was in possession of the claimed invention. Clarification is required.
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-15, 18-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2017.0262109).
Regarding claim 1, Choi disclose:
A display device comprising: a substrate including an active region and a non-active region; a thin film transistor on the substrate, the thin film transistor including a source electrode, a drain electrode, and a gate electrode; a light-emitting device on the thin film transistor; an encapsulation unit on the light-emitting device; a plurality of touch electrodes on the encapsulation unit; and a touch pad in the non-active region, the touch pad electrically connected to one or more of the plurality of touch electrodes, wherein the encapsulation unit comprises a first encapsulation layer, a second encapsulation layer on the first encapsulation layer, and a third encapsulation layer on the second encapsulation layer, and wherein the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region (see Fig. 1, 2; [0062, 0085]; substrate 100; active region DA; non-active region (2A-1A, up to DA); TFT 210; encapsulation unit 400; plurality of touch electrodes 210; touch pads 22 electrically connected to touch electrodes; encapsulation unit comprising first through third layers 410, 420, and 430 stacked, where third encapsulation layer 430 extends beyond DA and end of first encapsulation layer 410 in the non-active area)
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
the first encapsulation layer and the third encapsulation layer are in contact with each other in the non-active region (see Fig. 2c)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
the third encapsulation layer is in contact with a side surface of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active area (see Fig. 2c)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
a routing line electrically connected to the touch pad and at least one of the plurality of touch electrodes; and an insulation layer disposed on the routing line, wherein the insulation layer overlaps with the first encapsulation layer, the second encapsulation layer, and the third encapsulation layer in a first region of the non-active area, and wherein the insulation layer overlaps with the first encapsulation layer and the third encapsulation layer but does not overlap with the second encapsulation area in a second region of the non-active area (see Fig. 2c; [0089]; routing line 720 with insulation 730 thereon, overlapping 410, 420, 430 in non-active area; also overlapping 410 and 430 and not 420 in non-active area)
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
the first encapsulation layer and the third encapsulation layer are formed of inorganic material and the second encapsulation layer is formed of organic material (see [0085])
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
the touch pad includes at least a first touch pad electrode, a second touch pad electrode on the first touch pad electrode, and a third touch pad electrode on the second touch pad electrode (see Fig. 2b)
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
the first touch pad electrode is formed in a same layer as at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode (see Fig. 2b,c; layer above 100)
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
at least one of the second touch pad electrode or the third pad electrode is formed as a three-layer stack structure including Ti/Al/Ti (see [0072])
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
a display pad in the non-active region, the display pad electrically connected to the thin film transistor and including at least a first display pad electrode and a second display pad electrode disposed on the first display pad electrode (see Fig. 1-2; [0063]; display pads 21 in non-display region; electrodes connected to display TFTs)
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
the first display pad electrode is formed in a same layer as the gate electrode (see Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
an organic insulation layer on the touch electrodes, the organic insulation layer disposed over the encapsulation unit in the non-active region (see Fig. 4a; [0126]; organic insulation layer 714 on touch electrodes and encapsulating unit)
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
the organic insulation layer is disposed over the encapsulation unit where the third encapsulation layer extends beyond an end of the second encapsulation layer in the non-active region (see Fig. 4a; in the planar sense, the organic insulation layer is over (above) the overlapping of 430 and 410)
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
an optical layer disposed on the organic insulation layer (see Fig. 4a; optic layer 730)
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
a routing line electrically connected to the touch pad and at least one of the plurality of touch electrodes, wherein the routing line and/or at least one of the touch electrodes is formed as a three-layer stack structure including Ti/Al/Ti (see Fig. 2; [0097]; routing line 720 connecting to touch electrodes, Ti/Al/Ti stack).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014.0145979).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi is not explicit as to, but Lee disclose:
a plurality of bridges including first bridges and second bridges disposed on a different layer from the first bridges; and a touch insulating layer between the first bridges and the second bridges, wherein the plurality of touch electrodes include: a plurality of first touch electrodes arranged in a first direction; and a plurality of second touch electrodes arranged in a second direction that intersects the first direction, wherein the first bridges interconnect the first touch electrodes and the second bridges interconnect the second touch electrodes (see Fig. 4a,b; [0102-0111]; plurality of bridges 41br/42br in different layers, with touch insulating layer 223 in between; 41br in first direction, 42br in second direction, intersecting first, where 41br connects first touch electrodes and 42br connects second touch electrodes).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. In light of Choi Fig. 2c as modified by Lee Fig. 3b, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (e.g., overlapping the touch insulating layer where the third encapsulation layer is in contact with the side surface of the second) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. Choi further disclose:
a routing line electrically connected to the touch pad and at least one of the plurality of touch electrodes and disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Fig. 2c).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Sato (US 2015.0060817).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi is not explicit as to, but Sato disclose:
a plurality of color filters on the encapsulation unit, wherein the color filters include at least a first color filter and a second color filter, wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with at least one of the touch electrodes (see Fig. 4a; [0069]; color filters 620 above touch (thus above encapsulation layer of Choi) and overlapping boundaries between all electrodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Sato to that of Choi to predictably provide complete coverage of the color filters on a touch display.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Choi disclose:
a bank that defines a light-emitting region of the light-emitting device (see Fig. 2c; 300).
Choi is not explicit as to, but Sato disclose:
a bank that defines a light-emitting region of the light- emitting device, wherein the color filters include at least a first color filter and a second color filter, and wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with the bank (see Fig. 4a; [0069]; color filters 620 above display and overlapping entire light emitting areas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Sato to that of Choi to predictably provide complete coverage of the color filters on a touch display.
Regarding claim 23, Choi disclose:
A display device comprising: a substrate including an active region and a non-active region; a thin film transistor on the substrate, the thin film transistor including a source electrode, a drain electrode, and a gate electrode; a light-emitting device on the thin film transistor; an encapsulation unit on the light-emitting device; and a plurality of touch electrodes on the encapsulation unit (see Fig. 1, 2; [0062, 0085]; substrate 100; active region DA; non-active region (2A-1A, up to DA); TFT 210; encapsulation unit 400; plurality of touch electrodes 210)
Choi is not explicit as to, but Sato disclose:
a plurality of color filters on the encapsulation unit (see Fig. 4a; [0069]; color filters 620 above touch (thus above encapsulation layer of Choi)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Sato to that of Choi to predictably provide complete coverage of the color filters on a touch display.
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated herein. Choi is not explicit as to, but Sato disclose:
the color filters include at least a first color filter and a second color filter, wherein a boundary between the first color filter and the second color filter overlaps with at least one of the touch electrodes (see Fig. 4a; [0069]; color filters 620 above touch (thus above encapsulation layer of Choi) and overlapping boundaries between all electrodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Sato to that of Choi to predictably provide complete coverage of the color filters on a touch display.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. While Choi is not explicit as to, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (e.g., having display and touch pads on different layers, just as the display electrodes and touch electrodes are on different layers) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. While Choi is not explicit as discusses display multiple display pads and source and drain electrodes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the display pad further includes a third display pad electrode on the second display pad electrode, wherein the second display pad electrode is formed in a same layer as the source electrode and the drain electrode, and wherein the third display pad electrode is formed in a same layer as the plurality of touch electrodes, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). And it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, because such different layers would ease manufacturing by placing the same type of materials simultaneously on the same layer.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 2005.0001955).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated herein. Choi is not explicit as to, but Yoon disclose:
the optical layer is a circular polarizer or a brightness improvement film (see [0032]; circular polarizing optical layer)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Yoon to that of Choi to predictably provided brightness improvement using regeneration of light ([0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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.
/kenneth bukowski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights