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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 12/15/2025, in which: claims 1, 3, 7, 10, and 15 are amended; claims 2 and 8-9 are cancelled; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-20 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lhee et al. (US Publication 20120056904) in view of Xiong (US Publication 20200144336).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claims 1 and 7, Lhee teaches a display panel (fig. 3), comprising a substrate (fig. 4, 110) and a first driving thin film transistor (TFT) (fig. 3, Qd corresponding to 370G), a second driving TFT (Qd corresponding to 370R), a first capacitor (fig. 2, Cst corresponding to 370G), a second capacitor (Cst corresponding to 370R, see also paragraph 0066), a first power line (fig. 3, 172G), a second power line (172R), a first organic light-emitting diode (OLED) device (see figure below), and a second OLED device (see figure below) arranged on the substrate, wherein the first OLED device and the second OLED device emit light of different colors (paragraph 0072);
wherein the first power line is electrically connected to the first capacitor through at least one first via hole (185a corresponding to 370G, paragraph 0066), the first capacitor is electrically connected to the first driving TFT (paragraph 0039), and the first driving TFT is electrically connected to the first OLED device (paragraph 0038, “the output terminal is connected to the organic light emitting diode (OLED) LD”);
the second power line is electrically connected to the second capacitor through at least one second via hole (185a corresponding to 370R, paragraph 0066), the second capacitor is electrically connected to the second driving TFT (paragraph 0039), and the second driving TFT is electrically connected to the second OLED device (paragraph 0038);
PNG
media_image2.png
291
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an opening area of the at least one first via hole is a first opening area (see figure below), an opening area of the at least one second via hole is a second opening area (see figure below), and
the first OLED device is a green OLED device, and the second OLED device is a first non-green OLED device (fig. 3);
wherein the display panel further comprises a third driving TFT (fig. 3, Qd corresponding to 370B), a third capacitor (fig. 2, Cst corresponding to 370B), a third power line (fig. 3, 172B), and a second non-green OLED device (see first marked figure above);
the third power line is electrically connected to the third capacitor through at least one third via hole (185a corresponding to 370B), the third capacitor is electrically connected to the third driving TFT (paragraphs 0039 and 0066), and the third driving TFT is electrically connected to the second non-green OLED device (paragraph 0038); and
an opening area of the at least one third via hole is a third opening area (see second marked figure above).
Lhee does not teach and the first opening area is larger than the second opening area; and the first opening area is larger than the third opening area.
Xiong does not explicitly teach and the first opening area is larger than the second opening area; and the first opening area is larger than the third opening area, however, Xiong discloses “multiple ninth via holes 243… and a power line 244 is electrically connected to the capacitor electrode 261 through a ninth via hole 243” (paragraph 0056), which correspond to the first, second, and third via holes of Lhee.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the amount of first via holes such that there are more first via holes than second or third via holes and therefore the first opening area corresponding to the sum of the opening areas of all the first via holes is greater than the second or third opening areas corresponding to the sum of the opening areas of all the second and third via holes respectively in order “to charge the storage capacitor during the process of driving the light-emitting unit to emit light” (Xiong paragraph 0056), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 10, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim [[2]1/claim [[9]]7, wherein the first non-green OLED device is one of a red OLED device and a blue OLED device, and the second non-green OLED device is the other one of the red OLED device and the blue OLED device (see first marked figure corresponding to claim 1, first non-green OLED device is a red OLED device and second non-green OLED device is a blue OLED device).
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 11, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 3/claim 10, wherein the second opening area is equal to the third opening area (fig. 3, 185a corresponding to 370R and 185a corresponding to 370B are the same size, see also second marked figure corresponding to claim 1).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 12, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 3/claim 10, wherein the first non-green OLED device is the red OLED device, and the second non-green OLED device is the blue OLED device (see marked figure corresponding to claim 2).
Lhee does not teach and the second opening area is larger than the third opening area.
Xiong does not explicitly teach, and the second opening area is larger than the third opening area, however, Xiong discloses “multiple ninth via holes 243… and a power line 244 is electrically connected to the capacitor electrode 261 through a ninth via hole 243” (paragraph 0056), which correspond to the first, second, and third via holes of Lhee.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the amount of second via holes such that there are more second via holes than third via holes and therefore the second opening area corresponding to the sum of the opening areas of all the second via holes is greater than the third opening area corresponding to the sum of the opening areas of all the third via holes per the reason(s) stated above in claims 1 and 7, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 13, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 3/claim 10.
Lhee does not teach wherein a number of the at least one first via hole is greater than a number of the at least one second via hole and a number of the at least one third via hole.
Xiong does not explicitly teach wherein a number of the at least one first via hole is greater than a number of the at least one second via hole and a number of the at least one third via hole, however, Xiong discloses “multiple ninth via holes 243… and a power line 244 is electrically connected to the capacitor electrode 261 through a ninth via hole 243” (paragraph 0056), which correspond to the first, second, and third via holes of Lhee.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the first via hole such that there are more first via holes than second and third via holes per the reason(s) stated above in claims 1 and 7, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 10, wherein a number of the at least one first via hole is equal to a number of the at least one second via hole and a number of the at least one third via hole (fig. 3).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 9, wherein the first power line and the first capacitor are arranged in different layers (fig. 4, power line 172 and 85 and 124b of first capacitor are arranged in different layers), the first power line is arranged on the first capacitor (fig. 4), and an interlayer dielectric layer (180) is arranged between the first power line and the first capacitor, and the first via hole is defined in the interlayer dielectric layer and exposes the first capacitor (fig. 4); and
the first power line is connected to the first capacitor through the first via hole (fig. 4, 85 connected to 172 through 185a).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 15, wherein the second power line and the third power line are arranged in the same layer as the first power line (fig. 5, 172R and 172B arranged on same layer as 172G);
the second capacitor and the third capacitor are arranged in the same layer as the first capacitor (fig. 3, position of 85 and 124b of capacitor Cst is the same across all OLED devices);
the second via hole and the third via hole are defined in the interlayer dielectric layer (fig. 4, 185a position is same across all OLED devices), the second via hole exposes the second capacitor, and the third via hole exposes the third capacitor (fig. 4); and
the second power line is connected to the second capacitor through the second via hole, and the third power line is connected to the third capacitor through the third via hole (fig. 4, configuration of first power line, first capacitor, and first via hole is the same for second and third power lines, capacitors, and via holes).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 15, wherein the first driving TFT comprises a first gate (fig. 4, 124b corresponding to 370G), and the first capacitor comprises the first gate and a first electrode (85 corresponding to 370G) stacked on the first gate (paragraph 0066);
the first via hole overlaps the first electrode (fig. 4, 185a corresponding to 370G overlaps 85 corresponding to 370G); and
an orthographic projection of the first via hole projected on a plane where the first gate is located is outside the first gate (fig. 4, 185a corresponding to 370G and 124b corresponding to 370G do not overlap).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 16, wherein the second driving TFT comprises a second gate (fig. 4, 124b corresponding to 370R), and the second capacitor comprises the second gate and a second electrode (85 corresponding to 370R) stacked on the second gate (paragraph 0066);
the second via hole overlaps the second electrode (fig. 4, 185a corresponding to 370R overlaps 85 corresponding to 370R); and
an orthographic projection of the second via hole projected on a plane where the second gate is located is outside the second gate (fig. 4, 185a corresponding to 370R and 124b corresponding to 370R do not overlap).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 7.
Lhee does teach wherein the first opening area is N times the second opening area, and N is a positive integer greater than one.
Xiong does not explicitly teach wherein the first opening area is N times the second opening area, and N is a positive integer greater than one, however, Xiong discloses “multiple ninth via holes 243… and a power line 244 is electrically connected to the capacitor electrode 261 through a ninth via hole 243” (paragraph 0056), which correspond to the first, second, and third via holes of Lhee.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the amount of first via holes such that there are N times more first via holes than second or third via holes (where N is a positive integer greater than 1) per the reason(s) stated above in claims 1 and 7, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Lhee further teaches the display panel according to claim 19.
Lhee does not teach wherein the first opening area is between 2 times and 3 times the second opening area.
Xiong does not explicitly teach wherein the first opening area is between 2 times and 3 times the second opening area, however, Xiong discloses “multiple ninth via holes 243… and a power line 244 is electrically connected to the capacitor electrode 261 through a ninth via hole 243” (paragraph 0056), which correspond to the first, second, and third via holes of Lhee.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the amount of first via holes such that there are 2-3 times more first via holes than second or third via holes and therefore the first opening area corresponding to the sum of the opening areas of all the first via holes is between 2-3 times the second or third opening areas corresponding to the sum of the opening areas of all the second and third via holes respectively per the reason(s) stated above in claims 1 and 7, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378. See MPEP 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the drawings and specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 12/15/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7, and 10-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Amendments).
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the instant Remarks: “The modification proposed by the Examiner is not a mere design choice because the purpose and function of the Applicant's feature are fundamentally different from Lhee's disclosure… The Applicant's specification explicitly states that the first opening area is set larger than the second opening area "to enhance hydrogen removal of the first driving TFT". A person of ordinary skill in the art, looking at Lhee to solve an electrical resistance problem, would have no motivation to enlarge a via opening to facilitate a chemical/physical process (dehydrogenation) for the underlying semiconductor layer.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first opening area is set larger than the second opening area "to enhance hydrogen removal of the first driving TFT", see page 10 of applicant’s arguments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also, as stated above, Xiong discloses “multiple ninth via holes 243… and a power line 244 is electrically connected to the capacitor electrode 261 through a ninth via hole 243” (paragraph 0056) corresponding to the first, second, and third via holes of Lhee, and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the amount of first via holes such that there are more first via holes than second or third via holes and therefore the first opening area corresponding to the sum of the opening areas of all the first via holes is greater than the second or third opening areas corresponding to the sum of the opening areas of all the second and third via holes respectively, see MPEP 2144.04.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Y CHA whose telephone number is (703)756-5393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm and every other Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/GRACE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897