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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s RESPONSE TO ELECTION REQUIREMENT, filed 08/28/2025.
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I (Figs. 5-9) in the reply filed on 08/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that according to provision of PCT Rule 13.4, "Subject to Rule 13.1, it shall be permitted to include in the same international application a reasonable number of dependent claims, claiming specific forms of the invention claimed in an independent claim, even where the features of any dependent claim could be considered as constituting in themselves an invention", i.e., in the absence of the prior art that destroys the novelty and non-obviousness of independent claims, the dependent claims meet the requirement of unity. See page 16 of the Response. This is not found persuasive because the dependent claims do not meet the requirement of unity and the lack of unity was not recognized by the corresponding PCT international application since the Written Opinion of the ISA was simply asserted all the missing limitations/features in the claims being the well-known features and/or the conventional choices made by a person skilled in the art.
Further, the examination of U.S. applications and the examination of PCT international applications are not in the same manner and many PCT international applications are not properly examined in the foreign countries, e.g., missing identification of lacking unity, no matching the claimed limitations with the cited reference(s), citing unrelated reference(s) not in the same field of endeavor, not providing some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the reference themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, and not providing a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success. For an instance, the disclosure of this application and the corresponding PCT international application explicitly disclose different embodiments and include claims directed to specific embodiments/species, but the written Opinion of the PCT international application was not recognized because the written opinion was simply asserted all the missing limitations/features in the claims being the well-known features and/or the conventional choices made by a person skilled in the art. See the Written Opinion of the ISA (Form PCT/ISA/237 cited in IDS 01/17/2023) which addressed “… Independent claim1 and independent claim20 when referring to claim1 differ from D1 in that … the described difference are conventional choices made by a person skilled in the art on the basis of the corresponding technical motivation provided in D2 ...” (note that the D2 reference is not even in the same field of the claimed display panel/device.) Moreover, many dependent claims are treated in the Written Opinion of the ISA of the corresponding PCT application with only a single sentence “… The additional features of claims 2-19 are either disclosed in D1 or D2, or are conventional choices …” without matching the claimed limitations with the cited reference(s), without providing some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the reference themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, and without providing a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success. In other words, there is no burden to the examination of the PCT internation application by this international examiner as many claims can be addressed by a single sentence. If the Applicant has asserted the examination of the corresponding PCT proper and accepted the opinions/rejections as addressed in the Written Opinion of the ISA (including all limitations of the claims of the PCT application taught and/or conventional choices by the cited references D1 and D2 in the Written Opinion of the ISA, Form PCT/ISA/237 cited in IDS 01/17/2023,) as a submitted evidence of record, the Requirement for Election of Species would be withdrawn and the rejections of all claims would be made similarly to the Written Opinion.
In the examination of the U.S. application, the examiner must explicitly match/indicate all limitations of each claim in the cited reference(s) and articulate findings as to the scope and content of the prior art as necessary to support the obviousness rejection being made, and rationales. The Requirement for Election of Species is made because there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth in the Requirement for Election of Species dated 06/30/2025. Note that new limitations and/or new claims are usually submitted during the examination.
Furthermore, the Examiner stated on page 4 of the Requirement for Election of Species that: “Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions or species are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions or species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.”
For the above reasons, the ELECTION OF SPECIES REQUIREMENT dated 06/30/2025 is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant has indicated claims 1-7 and 17-20 read in the elected species I on page 1 of the Response. Examiner has agreed claims 1-7 and 20 read in the elected species I, but respectfully disagreed claims 17-19 read in the elected species I because claim 17 recites limitations, “wherein the active layer comprises a thirteenth active part connected to a gate of the driving transistor … the base substrate” in last 10 lines, which are not found in Figs. 5-9 of the elected species I; claim 18 recites limitations, “the active layer further comprises a sixteenth active part … the base substrate” in last 11 lines, which are not found in Figs. 5-9 of the elected species I; and claim 19 recites limitations, “wherein the enable signal line comprises a seventh extension part and an eighth extension part … the base substrate” in last 21 lines, which are not found in Figs. 5-9 of the elected species I. Note that in order to assert claims 17-19 read in the elected species I, Applicant must clearly identify all limitations of these claims found in Figs. 5-9 and/or described in conjunction with these figures.
Accordingly, claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the Election requirement in the reply filed on 08/28/2025. Claims 1-7 and 20 read in the elected species I are considered in the application. An action follows below:
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “overlaps” in line 20 should be changed to -- overlap -- so as to be consistent with the subject. Appropriate correction is required.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Since some U.S. applications are not correctly translated from the foreign applications due to, e.g., incorrect gramma, missed punctuations, and etc., it is in the best interest of the patent community that applicant, in his/her normal review and/or rewriting of the disclosure, especially claims and, to take into consideration these editorial situations and make changes as necessary, in order to avoid at least unnecessary 112 issue(s). Further, note that since the term, "at least one", can be broadly construed to include "one, two, three, or all", when drafting or amending claims, the Applicant should carefully consider the plain and ordinary meaning of "at least one".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 5-7 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 5, this claim recites limitations, “the connection line segments of adjacent rows and adjacent columns are staggered in the first direction, and the staggered connection line segments are commonly connected to at least one of the first signal lines” in last 3 lines. The above underlined limitations contain at least features, (i) “the connection line segments of adjacent rows and the connection line segments of adjacent columns are staggered in the first direction, and the staggered connection line segments are commonly connected to a same first signal line” and (ii) “each of the connection line segments of adjacent rows and each of the connection line segments of adjacent columns are staggered in the first direction, and the staggered connection line segments are commonly connected to all of the first signal lines in the display panel,” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 3 or 5 and the original claim 5, does not explicitly disclose in detail at least the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Moreover, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 6-7, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 5 above.
In addition to claim 6, this claim, when read together with claim 5, recites limitations, (i) “the connection line segments of adjacent rows and adjacent columns are staggered in the first direction” in lines 11-12 of claim 5 and (ii) “the staggered connection line segments are commonly connected to two adjacent first signal lines” in last two lines of claim 6. The above underlined limitations include at least the feature, “the connection line segments of adjacent rows and the connection line segments of adjacent columns are commonly connected to only two adjacent first signal lines,” 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 3 or 5, discloses “the connection line segments of adjacent rows and the connection line segments of adjacent columns are commonly connected to four or more or all adjacent first signal lines,” but does not explicitly disclose in detail at least the above feature of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Moreover, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 7, this claim further recites a limitation, “an orthographic projection of at least a partial structure of the connection line segments on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of a corresponding row of the pixel driving circuits on the base substrate” in last 4 lines. The above underlined limitation includes at least the feature, “a single orthographic projection of the plural connection line segments on the base substrate is located within an [[single]] orthographic projection of a corresponding row of the pixel driving circuits on the base substrate,” 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
First, the original disclosure, specifically Fig. 1 and ¶ 6 of the specification, discloses “… the display panel further includes plural pixel driving circuits arranged in a row and each pixel driving circuit including a plurality of elements including a plurality of transistors [T1-T7], a capacitor [C], and connections between the transistors [T1-T7], a capacitor [C], and terminals. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose in detail “a single orthographic projection of the pixel driving circuits” or “an [[single]] orthographic projection of a corresponding row of the pixel driving circuits” of the above feature of the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Second, the original disclosure, specifically Fig. 3 or 5, discloses “an orthographic projection of a corresponding connection line segment 4 on the base substrate,” but does not explicitly disclose in detail “a single orthographic projection of the plural connection line segments on the base substrate” or the above feature of the of the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Moreover, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Examiner notes that the specification is not the measure of invention. Therefore, limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. See In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968).
Further, the names/ terms of the features/elements used in the pending application or pending claims may be different from the names/terms of the matching features/ elements of the prior arts; however, the matching features/ elements of the prior arts contain all characteristics/ functions of the features/elements DEFINED by the pending claims.
Note that in order to avoid confusion, the below citations in the below rejection(s) are mere one or more places in the reference to disclose the "claimed" limitation(s) and/or are directed to one or more of embodiments disclosed by the cited reference(s). In other words, the “claimed” features/limitations may be read in other places in the reference or other embodiments of the reference. In order to better understand how the claimed limitations are taught by the reference(s), a review of the entire reference(s) is suggested by the examiner. Applicant is reminded a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention as not all relevant paragraphs may have been cited in the rejection. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0203587 A1; hereinafter Kim.)
As per claims 1 and 20, Kim discloses a display device (see at least Figs. 2, 4-7; ¶ 54:1-3) comprising a display panel (see at least Figs. 2, 4-7,) wherein the display panel comprises:
a base substrate [SUB; Figs. 2 and any of Figs. 6-7];
a third conductive layer located on one side of the base substrate (see at least any of Figs. 6-7, disclosing a third conductive layer comprising at least elements [PL1, PL2] and located on a top side of the base substrate SUB,) wherein the third conductive layer comprises first signal lines [PL1], orthographic projections of the first signal lines on the base substrate [SUB] are spaced apart in a first direction [DR1] and extend along a second direction [DR2], and the first direction intersects with the second direction (see at least Figs. 5A, 6, 7;) and
a fourth conductive layer located on one side of the third conductive layer away from the base substrate (see at least any of Figs. 6-7, disclosing a fourth conductive layer comprising at least element [NE1] and located on the top side of the third conductive layer away from the base substrate SUB,) wherein the fourth conductive layer comprises connection line segments [NE1], orthographic projections of the connection line segments on the base substrate extend along the first direction (see at least Fig. 5A and any of Figs. 6-7,) and a same one of the connection line segments [NE1] is connected to multiple ones of the first signal lines [PL1] through via holes, respectively (see at least Figs. 5A, 6, 7; ¶ 104:4-8.)
As per claim 2, Kim discloses the first signal line [PL1] being a power line (see at least ¶ 104:4-11.)
As per claim 5, Kim discloses: wherein the first direction is a row direction [DR1], the second direction is a column direction [DR2] (see at least Fig. 2, 5A,) and the fourth conductive layer comprises the connection line segments [NE1] arranged in the row direction and the column direction (see at least Figs. 2, 5A, disclosing a plurality of pixels [PXL/ PXL1, PXL2] arranged in the row direction and the column direction and each connection line segment [NE1] associating with a corresponding pixel [PXL/ PXL1/ PXL2];)
the connection line segments located in a same row are spaced apart in the row direction, and adjacent connection line segments in the same row are connected to different ones of the first signal lines (see the above discussion for the connection line segments arranged in the row direction and the column direction; further see at least Figs. 2, 5A;)
the connection line segments located in a same column are spaced apart in the column direction, and the connection line segments in the same column are connected to a same group of the first signal lines (see the above discussion for the connection line segments arranged in the row direction and the column direction; further see at least Figs. 2, 5A;)
the connection line segments of adjacent rows and adjacent columns are staggered in the first direction, and the staggered connection line segments are commonly connected to at least one of the first signal lines (see the above discussion for the connection line segments arranged in the row direction and the column direction; further see at least Figs. 2, 5A, disclosing the connection line segments [NE1] of adjacent rows and adjacent columns are staggered in the first direction, and the staggered connection line segments are commonly connected to one or more the first signal lines [PL1].)
As per claim 7, Kim discloses: wherein the display panel comprises pixel driving circuits arranged in rows and columns (see at least Figs. 2, 4;) the first signal lines [PL1] are provided in a one-to-one correspondence with multiple columns of the pixel driving circuits (see at least Figs. 2, 4, 5;), and the pixel driving circuits are connected to corresponding first signal lines [PL1]; and multiple rows of the connection line segments [NE1] are provided in a one-to-one correspondence with multiple rows of the pixel driving circuits, and an orthographic projection of at least a partial structure of the connection line segments on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of a corresponding row of the pixel driving circuits on the base substrate (see at least Figs. 2, 4, 5.)
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0118420 A1; hereinafter Yang.)
As per claim 3, Kim discloses the display panel further comprises pixel driving circuits arranged in the first direction and the second direction (see at least Figs. 2, 4, disclosing the display panel further comprising pixel driving circuits of the pixels PXL arranged in the first direction DR1 and the second direction DR2, each pixel driving circuit comprising elements [T1-T7, Cst],) the pixel driving circuit comprises a driving transistor [T1], a capacitor [Cst] and a fourth transistor [T2], a first electrode of the capacitor [Cst] is connected to a gate of the driving transistor [T1], a second electrode of the capacitor [Cst] is connected to a power line [VDD/ELVDD/PL1], a second electrode of the fourth transistor [T2] is connected to a first electrode of the driving transistor [T1], and a first electrode of the fourth transistor is connected to a data line [Dj] (see at least Fig. 4;)
the display panel further comprises:
a first conductive layer located between the base substrate and the third conductive layer (see at least Figs. 5A, 6A; ¶ 99, disclosing a first conductive layer comprising first conductive parts [GE1] and located between the base substrate [SUB] and the third conductive layer [see the rejection of claim 1, disclosing the third conductive layer comprising elements [PL1, PL2],) wherein the first conductive layer comprises first conductive parts [GE1] (see the above discussion,) orthographic projections of the first conductive parts on the base substrate are spaced apart in the first direction (see at least Figs. 5A, 6A,) and the first conductive parts are used to form the gate of the driving transistor and the first electrode of the capacitor [Cst] (see at least ¶¶ 97, 99;) and
a second conductive layer located between the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer (see at least Figs. 5A, 6A; ¶ 99, disclosing a second conductive layer comprising second conductive parts [GE2] and located between the above-discussed first conductive layer and the above-discussed third conductive layer,) wherein the second conductive layer comprises second conductive parts [GE2], orthographic projections of the second conductive parts on the base substrate [SUB] are spaced apart in the first direction (see at least Figs. 5A, 6A,) the second conductive parts [GE2] are provided in a one-to-one correspondence with the first conductive parts [GE1] (see at least Fig. 5A,) the orthographic projections of the second conductive parts [GE2] on the base substrate [SUN] at least partially overlap with orthographic projections of corresponding first conductive parts [GE1] on the base substrate [SUB] (see at least Figs. 5A, 6A,) and the second conductive parts [GE2] are used to form the second electrode of the capacitor [Cst] (see at least Fig. 5A; ¶ 99;)
Accordingly, Kim discloses all limitations of this claim, but is silent to the above strikethrough limitations.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang discloses a related display panel comprising pixel driving circuits [2] (see Figs. 1-2,) each similar to the pixel driving circuit of the Kim reference (see the pixel driving circuit 2 shown in Fig. 2 of Yang and the pixel driving circuit shown in Fig. 4 of Kim,) wherein the third conductive layer further comprises the data line [16] (see at least Figs. 3-4; ¶¶ 36, 64, disclosing a third conductive layer comprising the data line [16], a driving voltage line [26/ELVDD],) wherein an orthographic projection of the data line on the base substrate extends along the second/vertical direction (see at least Fig. 3,) and the orthographic projection of the data line [16] on the base substrate is located between orthographic projections of two second conductive parts [C2] adjacent in the first/horizontal direction on the base substrate (see at least Figs. 1, 3.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to easily recognize the Yang reference remedying for the deficiency of Kim or to modify the display panel of Kim to include the above strikethrough limitations, in view of the teaching in the Yang reference, to obtain the same predictable result.
As per claim 4, the above modified Kim in view of Yang obviously renders: wherein the orthographic projection of the data line on the base substrate intersects with the orthographic projections of the connection line segments on the base substrate (see Kim at least Fig. 5A, disclosing the orthographic projection of the power lines [PL1] on the base substrate intersecting with the orthographic projections of the connection line segments [NE1] on the base substrate; further see Yang at least Fig. 3 disclosing the orthographic projection of the data line [16] on the base substrate intersecting with the orthographic projections of the connection line segments [26’] on the base substrate;) and
the display panel further comprises:
a dielectric layer, located between the second conductive layer and the third conductive layer (see Kim at least Fig. 6A; ¶¶ 99, 101, disclosing a dielectric layer [ILD2] located between the second conductive layer and the third conductive layer;) and
a planarization layer [ILD3] located between the third conductive layer and the fourth conductive layer, wherein a thickness of the planarization layer is greater than a thickness of the dielectric layer see Kim at least Fig. 6A; ¶¶ 99, 101.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
As per claim 6, Kim discloses each connection line segment [NE1] connected to adjacent first signal lines [PL1] (see at least Fig. 5A) and the staggered connection line segments commonly connected to two adjacent first signal lines (see the above discussion in the rejection of claim 5 for the connection line segments arranged in the row direction and the column direction; further see at least Figs. 2, 5A, disclosing the connection line segments [NE1] of adjacent rows and adjacent columns are staggered in the first direction [DR1], and the staggered connection line segments are commonly connected to two adjacent first signal lines [PL1].) Accordingly, Kim discloses each connection line segment [NE1] connected to two adjacent first signal lines [PL1], instead of four adjacent first signal lines, as claimed. In other words, Kim is silent to a particular number of adjacent first signal lines connected to each connection line segment being four, as claimed.
However, a change in size or range was judicially recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961); In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); and In re Reven, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968). Therefore, while Kim may not exemplify the particular number of adjacent first signal lines connected to each connection line segment being four, as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the Kim display panel having the particular number of adjacent first signal lines connected to each connection line segment being four, as desired as claimed, to obtain the same predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. He et al. (US 2023/0363224 A1 or the corresponding CN 112885850 A1) also discloses a related display device including all limitations of at least claims 1, 2 and 20 (see at least Figs. 1, 4-12.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. 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.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626