DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim and Specification Status
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-3, 7-8, 11-13, and 17-18 in the Applicant’s response dated 24 December 2025. The claim amendments have been addressed below.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-3, 7-8, 11-13, and 17-18 in the Applicant’s response dated 24 December 2025 with respect to the drawing objection presented in the previous office action dated 25 September 2025. The drawing objection has been withdrawn however a new drawing objection in view of the claim amendments and has been addressed below.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-3, 7-8, 11-13, and 17-18 in the Applicant’s response dated 24 December 2025 with respect to the U.S.C. 112(a) rejection presented in the previous office action dated 25 September 2025. The claim amendments with respect to the U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been addressed below.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the abstract in the Applicant’s response dated 24 December 2025. The objection to the specification due to the undue length of the abstract presented in the previous office action dated 25 September 2025 has therefore been withdrawn.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the title in the Applicant’s response dated 24 December 2025. The objection to the specification due to the title of the invention being non-descriptive presented in the previous office action dated 25 September 2025 has therefore been withdrawn.
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 symmetrical features, the virtual vertical and virtual horizontal lines as described in claims 1-3, 7-8, 11-13, and 17-18 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. Currently, it is not explicitly clear to one of ordinary skill in the art how the conductive patterns and wiring lines are symmetrical across a virtual straight line and then aligned in virtual vertical lines spaced apart from each other with respect to the first virtual straight lines and aligned in virtual horizonal lines spaced apart from each other in the plan view.
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 1-7 and 9-10 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 claims 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the specification as filed fails to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the claim limitation “a shape of the first conductive pattern and a shape of the second conductive pattern are symmetrical with each other with respect to a first virtual straight line passing through a center of the first driving circuit area and a center of the second driving circuit area in a plan view”.
The Examiner has read para [00118] to shed light on how to interpret this limitation in claim 1, however, the specification lacks written description to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how a first conductive pattern and a second conductive pattern are symmetrical with each with respect to first virtual straight line STL1 as shown in Fig. 6.
As drawn below, Examiner has shown a location of CP1, when using the term “symmetrical”. Examiner has applied the plain and ordinary meaning. Examiner has determined that when applying the term symmetrical with respect to a first and second conductive pattern being symmetrical with each other with respect to first virtual straight line STL1, second conductive pattern would reside in the first driving circuit area DCA1 as shown in annotated Fig. 6 below.
The Applicant then further states in claim 1 that “and the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern are disposed in a manner that the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern are respectively aligned in virtual vertical lines spaced apart from each other with respect to the first virtual straight line and in virtual horizontal lines spaced apart from each other in the plan view”, however, in order for the Examiner to be able to interpret the limitation with respect to the virtual vertical lines and the virtual horizontal lines, the first part of the clause describing the symmetry of the first and second conductive pattern must be able to be understood. As the claim is currently presented, it appears that a first and second conductive pattern would both be comprised in a first driving circuit area and it is unclear how one would then use the virtual vertical lines and virtual horizontal lines to dispose the second conductive pattern in a second driving circuit area when said second driving circuit area would essentially overlap the first driving circuit area.
PNG
media_image1.png
551
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. Furthermore, claims 2-3 and 7 recite similar amendments to claim 1 as disclosed above.
Claims 11-17 and 19-20 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 claims 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the specification as filed fails to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the claim limitation “a shape of the first wire in the first driving circuit area and a shape of the second wire in the second driving circuit area are symmetrical with each other with respect to a first virtual straight line passing through a center of the first driving circuit area and a center of the second driving circuit area in a plan view”.
The Examiner has read para [00118] to shed light on how to interpret this limitation in claim 1, however, the specification lacks written description to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how a first conductive pattern and a second conductive pattern are symmetrical with each with respect to first virtual straight line STL1 as shown in Fig. 6.
As drawn below, Examiner has shown a location of CP1, when using the term “symmetrical”. Examiner has applied the plain and ordinary meaning. Examiner has determined that when applying the term symmetrical with respect to a first and second conductive pattern being symmetrical with each other with respect to first virtual straight line STL1, second conductive pattern would reside in the first driving circuit area DCA1 as shown in annotated Fig. 6 below.
The Applicant then further states in claim 11 that “and the first wire and the second wire are disposed in a manner that an end portion of the first wire and an end portion of the second wire are respectively aligned in virtual vertical lines spaced apart from each other with respect to the first virtual straight line and in virtual horizontal lines spaced apart from each other in the plan view”, however, in order for the Examiner to be able to interpret the limitation with respect to the virtual vertical lines and the virtual horizontal lines, the first part of the clause describing the symmetry of the first and second wires must be able to be understood. As the claim is currently presented, it appears that a first and second conductive wire would both be comprised in a first driving circuit area and it is unclear how one would then use the virtual vertical lines and virtual horizontal lines to dispose the second wire in a second driving circuit area when said second driving circuit area would essentially overlap the first driving circuit area.
Claims 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 11. Furthermore, claims 12-13 and 17 recite similar amendments to claim 11 as disclosed above.
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 1-7 and 9-10 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “a shape of the first conductive pattern and a shape of the second conductive pattern are symmetrical with each other with respect to a first virtual straight line passing through a center of the first driving circuit area and a center of the second driving circuit area in a plan view”. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how a first conductive pattern and a second conductive pattern can be comprised in two different driving circuit areas if a shape of the first conductive pattern and a shape of the second conductive pattern are symmetrical with each other with respect to a first virtual straight line. As shown in annotated Fig. 6 above, a second conductive pattern symmetrical to a first conductive pattern would overlap the first driving circuit area and it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention how a second conductive pattern may be comprised in both a first driving pixel circuit area and a second driving pixel circuit area.
Claim 1 further states “and the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern are disposed in a manner that the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern are respectively aligned in virtual vertical lines spaced apart from each other with respect to the first virtual straight line and in virtual horizontal lines spaced apart from each other in the plan view”. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention how a same conductive pattern in two different driving circuit areas can be offset vertically and horizontally.
Claim 1 further states “a first driving circuit area and a second driving circuit area adjacent to the first driving circuit area and in which a second opening area is defined between the first driving circuit area and the second driving circuit area”. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention how a first driving circuit area comprising a first conductive pattern may be adjacent across an opening from a second driving circuit area comprising a second conductive pattern when said conductive patterns are symmetrical with each with respect to a first virtual straight line resulting in the first driving circuit area and the second driving circuit area overlapping with each after the symmetrical geometry has been applied, wherein it is unclear how two overlapping areas may also be adjacent with an opening defined between them rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. Furthermore, claims 2-3 and 7 recite similar amendments to claim 1 as disclosed above.
Claims 11-17 and 19-20 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.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “a shape of the first wire in the first driving circuit area and a shape of the second wire in the second driving circuit area are symmetrical with each other with respect to a first virtual straight line passing through a center of the first driving circuit area and a center of the second driving circuit area in a plan view”. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how a first wire and a second wire can be comprised in two different driving circuit areas if a shape of the first wire and a shape of the second wire are symmetrical with each other with respect to a first virtual straight line. As shown in annotated Fig. 6 above, a second wire symmetrical to a first wire would overlap the first driving circuit area and it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention how a second wire may be comprised in both a first driving pixel circuit area and a second driving pixel circuit area.
Claim 11 further states “and the first wire and the second wire are disposed in a manner that an end portion of the first wire and an end portion of the second wire are respectively aligned in virtual vertical lines spaced apart from each other with respect to the first virtual straight line and in virtual horizontal lines spaced apart from each other in the plan view”. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention how a same wire in two different driving circuit areas can be offset vertically and horizontally.
Claim 11 further states “a first driving circuit area, a second driving circuit area adjacent to the first driving circuit area, and in which a second opening area is defined between the first driving circuit area and the second driving circuit area”. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention how a first driving circuit area comprising a first wire may be adjacent across an opening from a second driving circuit area comprising a second wire when said wires are symmetrical with each with respect to a first virtual straight line resulting in the first driving circuit area and the second driving circuit area overlapping with each after the symmetrical geometry has been applied, wherein it is unclear how two overlapping areas may also be adjacent with an opening defined between them rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 11. Furthermore, claims 12-13 and 17 recite similar amendments to claim 11 as disclosed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ALEXANDER M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571(272)-1864. 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.
/ALEXANDER MICHAEL MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights