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
The objection to the title is overcome.
The amended claims overcome the scope of enablement rejection.
The claims are still not definite. See the new 112 rejections below.
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 1, 3, and 5-20 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 1 recites “the plurality of driving transistors”, which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20 has the same problem.
Claim 1 recites “a thermal compensation structures in heat communication with at least some of the pixel units”. While the plurality of driving transistors is not properly recited, as noted above, they are elements included in the claim language. In the specification (e.g. paragraphs 54 and 55) the driving transistors are disclosed as being the thermal compensation units, and further this is consistent with the properties of driving transistors laid out in claim 1 (the differing heat generation in each subpixel). However, claim 1 simply recites these as two separate elements of the device, with no recited connection. Does the claim require a thermal compensation structure that is separate from the driving transistor?
Claim 1 recites that “the brightness decay rate is a quotient of a decrease in brightness of a sub-pixel from an initial brightness of the sub-pixel when mixed white light is at an initial brightness thereof with respect to time that the brightness of the mixed white light decays to a certain level of the initial brightness thereof.” It is not clear what the quotient is; what is divided by what?
Claim 20 has the same problem.
Claim 7 recites “an orthographic projection of and the third driving transistor on the substrate is located in the orthographic projection area of the second sub-pixel on the substrate.” This is agrammatical. Perhaps the “and” is spurious?
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of pixel units arranged on a side of the substrate”. Claim 9, which depends indirectly from claim 1, recites “a pixel definition layer arranged on a side of the substrate”. Claim 14, which depends directly from claim 9 and indirectly from claim 1, recites “a planarization layer disposed on a side of the substrate”. If these all refer to the same side, then claims 9 and 14 should make reference back to the antecedent usage in claim 1. If not, a different term (e.g. “a second side of the substrate”) should be used.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
The claims have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is sufficient uncertainty that it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited:
Kim, US 2022/0310761 A1, shows multiple transistors under a subpixel.
Hsu, US 2021/0408180 A1, shows a thermally insulating bank.
Takagi, US 2019/0074470 A1, shows a heat source 16 under a subpixel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights