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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-22 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's response of 01/06/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 15, and 19 have been amended. No new matter has been added.
This office action considers claims 1-22 pending for prosecution and are examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 2 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 20240237444 A1 - hereinafter Tian) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210028258 A1 – hereinafter Lee-258), Kim et al. (US 20170337873 A1 – hereinafter Kim), and Choi et al. (US 20220415250 A1 – hereinafter Choi).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tian teaches:
(currently amended) A display device ([0006] – “Embodiments of this
application provide a display panel and a display device”) comprising:
a display panel (10 – Fig. 1 – [0109] – “flexible display 10”) including:
a display region (DA – fig 3A) (DA – Fig. 2 – [0112] – “display panel includes a display region DA”); and
a non-display region (PA – Fig. 2 – [0112] – “peripheral region PA”) adjacent
to the display region (DA), the display region (DA) including:
a first display region (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – this is a region of
pixels that are closer to DA, hereinafter ‘DA1’); and
a second display region (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – this is a region of
pixels that are closer to PA, hereinafter ‘DA2’) more adjacent to the non-display region (PA) than the first display region (DA1), and including an edge region (E1 – Fig. 2 – [0113] – “first edge E1” – this is part of the edge region and a corner region (CN1 – Fig. 2 [0113] – “first corner CN1” – this is part of the corner region), the edge region and the corner region each including a first region (E1 and CN1 – Fig. 2 – [0113] – {“display region DA may include a first edge E1”}, {“first corner CN1”}) and a second region (E2 and CN2 – Fig. 2 – [0113] – {“display region DA may include a … second edge E1”}, {“second corner CN2”}) continuously defined, wherein
the display panel (10) includes:
a plurality of scan lines extending along a first direction, the plurality of scan lines comprising a first scan line and a second scan line;
a plurality of data lines extending along a second direction intersecting the first direction, the plurality of data lines comprising a first data line and a second data line; and
a driving part (301 – Fig. 4 – [0133] – “GOA circuits 301”) disposed in the second region (R – Fig. 2 – [0134] – “the GOA circuit and a signal line of the GOA circuit occupy space in the R corner region”),
the driving part (301) includes:
a first driving part connected to the first scan line and disposed in the edge region; and
a second driving part connected to the second scan line and disposed in the
corner region,
the display panel (10) further includes:
a first pixel (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – [0035] – “first pixel units in the first region are disposed in the first region” – hereinafter ‘PX1”) disposed in the first display region (DA1), the first pixel (PX1) comprising a first driving transistor (T1 – [0153] – “first transistor T1 is a drive transistor”) and a first switching transistor (T2 – [0151] – “second transistor T2 is a switching transistor”), the first switching transistor (T2) being configured to transmit a first data signal ([0151] – “The second transistor T2 is configured to transmit, to the first transistor T1 based on a switching voltage input to the scanning line, a data signal input from the data line”) provided through the first data line to the first driving transistor (T1) based on a first driving signal provided by the first driving part through the first scan line; and
a second pixel (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – [0035] – “first pixel units in the first region are disposed in the first region” – hereinafter ‘PX2”) disposed in the second display region (DA2);
, the second pixel (PX2) comprising a second driving transistor and a second switching transistor, the second switching transistor being configured to transmit a second data signal provided through the second data line to the second driving transistor based on a second driving signal provided by the second driving part through the second scan line ([0148] – “FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram of a structure of a pixel unit according to an embodiment of this application. As shown in FIG. 8, the pixel unit includes light-emitting devices 701, bottom drive circuits 702, and anode leads 703” – this describes that each pixel has a drive circuit with the same components as described in PX1 therefore matching the elements of PX2), and
a shape of the first driving part and a shape of the second driving part are different from each other, and a width of the first driving part and a width of the second driving part are different from each other in one direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
737
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tian does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-258 teaches
a plurality of scan lines ([0044] – “signal lines SL1, SL2, SLp, SLn, 133, and 171 may include a first scan line SL1 transferring a first scan signal Sn, a second scan line SL2 transferring a second scan signal Sn′” – this is a plurality of scan lines – hereinafter ‘SL’) extending along a first direction ([0071] – “the first scan line SL1, the second scan line SL2, the previous scan line SLp, the next scan line SLn, the emission control line 133, and the initialization voltage line VIL that extend in a first direction” – Fig. 4 shows this), the plurality of scan lines (SL) comprising a first scan line (SL1 – Fig. 3 – [0044] – “first scan line SL1 transferring a first scan signal Sn) and a second scan line (SL2 – Fig. 3 – [0044] – “second scan line SL2 transferring a second scan signal Sn′”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the scan line structure as taught by Lee-258 into Tian.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee-258 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0005] – “a display apparatus driven by a thin film transistor including a silicon semiconductor and a thin film transistor including an oxide semiconductor to reduce power consumption of the display apparatus and allow a high integration degree at the same time.”
Tian and Lee-258 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
a plurality of data lines (D – Fig. 8 – [0188] – “data lines D may extend from the pixel area PXA substantially in the second direction DR2 into the peripheral area PPA”) extending along a second direction (DR2 – Fig. 8 – “data lines D may extend from the pixel area PXA substantially in the second direction DR2 into the peripheral area PPA”) intersecting the first direction (DR1 – Fig. 8 – [0182] – “scan lines S may extend substantially in the first direction DR1 from the pixel area PXA to (and into) the peripheral area PPA, as shown in FIG. 8”), the plurality of data lines (D) comprising a first data line (Da – Fig. 8 – [0189] – “first data line Da”) and a second data line (Db – Fig. 8 – [0189] – “second data line Db”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the data line structure as taught by Kim into Tian and Lee-258.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0004] – “The organic light emitting device may include a plurality of pixels including organic light emitting devices. Wiring lines may be provided to each pixel to supply various signals thereto. These wiring lines may be disposed in various manners to supply signals to each pixel.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Tian, Lee-258, and Kim do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Choi teaches
a first driving part (310 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “The first set of driver circuits includes the side SCAN/EM drivers 310”) connected to the first scan line (324 – Fig. 3B – [0053] – “side SCAN/EM drivers 310 each transmit a scan signal and an emission signal to a corresponding row of pixels through a signal line 324”) and disposed in the edge region (122 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “the side bezel 122” – this is an edge region); and
a second driving part (320 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “The second set of driver
circuits includes the corner SCAN/EM drivers 320”) connected to the second scan line (322 – Fig. 3B – [0055] – “corner SCAN/EM drivers 320 each transmit the scan signal and the emission signal to a corresponding row of pixels through a signal line 322”) and disposed in the corner region (132 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “corner bezel 132” – this is a corner region),
a shape of the first driving part (310) and a shape of the second driving part (320) are different from each other, and a width (W.sub.s – Fig. 3C – [0070] – “the width W.sub.s of the side SCAN/EM driver 310”) of the first driving part (310) and a width of the second driving part (320) are different from each other in one direction ([0070] – “the width W.sub.t of the corner SCAN/EM driver 320 is less than the width W.sub.s of the side SCAN/EM driver 310” – Fig. 3C shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driving part structure as taught by Choi into Tian, Lee-258, and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Choi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0007] – “To reduce the width of the corner regions of the bezel, the size of the driver circuits can be reduced. Specifically, the width of the driver circuits can be reduced, while the length of the driver circuits can be increased. By reducing the width of the driver circuits, the corner bezel size can be reduced. Reducing corner bezel size can result in a greater size of the display active area in the panel, and a corresponding higher screen to body ratio in the electronic device.”
Regarding claim 8, Tian as modified by Lee-258, Choi, and Kim, teaches claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Tian further teaches
(original) The display device of claim 1, wherein
the first driving part (GOA-E) and the second driving part each include a first driver (EDV – [0125] – “The GOA circuit may include a scan driver SDV, an emit driver EDV, and/or the like”), a second driver, and third drivers (SDV – [0125] – “The GOA circuit may include a scan driver SDV, an emit driver EDV, and/or the like. The scan driver SDV is configured to supply one or more electrical signals, such as a scanning signal, to a plurality of pixel units PX along a signal line such as the scanning line SL. The emit driver EDV is configured to supply one or more electrical signals” – this describes these limitations).
Tian, Lee-258, and Kim do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Choi teaches
the second driving part (320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second driving part structure as taught by Choi into Tian, Lee-258, and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Choi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun et al. (US 11854490 B1 – hereinafter Aygun), and Won et al. (CN 113764469 A – hereinafter Won).
Regarding claim 2, Tian as modified by Lee-258, Kim, and Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Tian, Lee-258, and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 2.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
(original) The display device of claim 1, wherein
the display panel further comprises:
a base layer (110 – fig 5A) (kim (SUB – Fig. 7A – [0049] – “substrate SUB”) ;
a circuit layer (120 – fig 5A) (kim (Fig. 7A annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘CL’) disposed on the base layer (110) (kim (SUB) , and including:
PNG
media_image2.png
390
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first pixel driving circuit (DC1 – fig 6B) (kim (SDV – Fig. 1 – [0059] – “scan driver SDV that provides a scan signal to each pixel via”) overlapping the first display region (DA1 – fig 6B) (kim (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – this is a region of pixels that are closer to PXA, hereinafter ‘DA1’) in a plan view;
a second pixel driving circuit (DC2 – fig 6C) (kim (EDV – Fig. 1 – [0059] “emission driver EDV that provides an emission control signal to each pixel”) overlapping the first region (SEA1 – fig 6B) (kim (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – this is a region of pixels that are closer to PPA, hereinafter ‘DA2’) in a plan view; and
a driver overlapping the second region in a plan view; and
a light emission element layer (130 – fig 5A) (kim (OLED – Fig. 7A annotated, see below – [0056] – “organic light emitting device (OLED)” – this is considered a layer) disposed on the circuit layer (120) (kim (CL).
PNG
media_image3.png
699
541
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the pixel driving circuits structure as taught by Kim into Tian, Lee-258, and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of as stated above in claim 1.
Tian, Lee-258, Choi, and Kim do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 2.
However, in an analogous art, Aygun teaches
a driver (20B-2 – Fig. 6A – {[4:57-58] – “Gate driver circuitry 20B may include gate drivers and emission drivers”, {[5:54-57] – “first gate driver circuitry 20B-1 is formed on the left side of the active area AA and second gate driver circuitry 20B-2 is formed on the right side of the active area AA”) overlapping ([6:41-48] – “gate driver circuitry 20B-2 extends into active area AA by distance 34 along the right edge of the active area. In other words, the right edge of active area AA overlaps gate driver circuitry 20B-2 (e.g., the active area may at least partially overlap a shift register included in gate driver circuitry 20B-2)”) the second region (74 – Fig. 6A – [55 = 8:18-22] – “FIGS. 6A and 6B show an arrangement that allows the gate driver circuitry to at least partially be formed in the light-emitting active area of the display. As shown in FIG. 6A, the active area includes a regular pixel-density region 72 and a low pixel-density region 74” – this corresponds to the second region) in a plan view.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driver and second region structure as taught by Aygun into Tian, Lee-258, Choi, and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Aygun in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [6:37] – “To reduce the size of the inactive area.”
Tian, Lee-258, Choi, Kim, and Aygun do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 2.
However, in an analogous art, Won teaches
a first light emission region (Pr3 – Fig. 8A – [n0127] – “red third subpixel Pr3”) overlapping the first display region (DA1 – Fig. 8A – [n0126] – “first display area DA1”) in a plan view; and
a second light emission region (Pg3 – Fig. 8A – [n0127] – “green third subpixel Pg3”) overlapping the second display region (DA3 – Fig. 8a – [n0127] – “third display area DA3”) in a plan view.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light emission regions structure as taught by Won into Tian, Lee-258, Choi, Kim, and Aygun.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Won in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of having a display device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 3, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Won, teaches claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Choi, Aygun and Won do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
(original) The display device of claim 2, wherein
the first pixel (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – [0049] – “plurality of pixels PXL” – hereinafter ‘PX1”) is electrically connected to the first pixel driving circuit (SDV – connected through line S), and the second pixel (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – [0049] – “plurality of pixels PXL” – hereinafter ‘PX2”) is electrically connected to the second pixel driving circuit (EDV – connected through line E).
PNG
media_image4.png
661
611
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the pixel driving circuits structure as taught by Kim into Tian, Lee-258, Choi, Aygun and Won.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Won, teaches claim 3 from which claim 4 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Aygun, do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Won teaches
(original) The display device of claim 3, wherein
the second pixel (PX3 – Fig. 9C – [n0127] – “pixel PX3”) is disposed in the first region (DA3 – Fig. 8A – [n0127] – “third display area DA3” – this corresponds to the first region) and in the second region DA2 – Fig. 8A – [n0127] – “display area DA2” – this corresponds to the second region – pixels PX3 and PX2 respectively correspond to the same type of pixel PX3), and
the second pixel (PX3) disposed in the first region (DA3) and the second pixel (PX3) disposed in the second region (DA2) are both electrically connected ([n0153] – “the third pixel circuit PC3 for the third pixel PX3 is set in the first display area DA1 and the second display area DA2, and the third pixel circuit PC3 is electrically connected to the third light emitting element EU3 via the first bridge line BL1 and the second bridge line BL2, so that the display area DA can be expanded to the third display area DA3 in which the driver DR is arranged” – Fig. 9C shows this) to the second pixel driving circuit (DR – [n0153] – “driver DR”) disposed in the first region (DA3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the pixel electrical connection structure as taught by Won into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Aygun.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Won in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [n0006] - "a nondisplay area is reduced and a display area is increased", and connecting pixels to the driving circuit.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 5, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Won, teaches claim 2 from which claim 5 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Aygun, do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Won teaches
(original) The display device of claim 2, wherein an area of the second light
emission region (EU3 – Fig. 9C – [n0133] – “light emitting element EU3”) is greater ([n0133] – “the area of the emission region of the third light emitting element EU3 may be greater than the area of the emission region of the first light emitting element EU1”) than an area of a corresponding first light emission region (EU1 – [n0133] – “emitting element EU1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the pixel electrical connection structure as taught by Won into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Aygun.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Won in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Kim et al. (US 20220198974 A1 – hereinafter Kim-2).
Regarding claim 6, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, and Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Tian and Lee-258, Kim, and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Kim-2 teaches
(previously presented) The display device of claim 1, wherein
the first driving part (P(n+1) – Fig. 6 – [0080] – “gate block corresponding to the n+1-th pixel row P(n+1)”) has a first length in the first direction ([0080] – “a length extending from an outer periphery of the pixel area 120 to an outer periphery of the non-display area” – this describes a direction),
the second driving part (P(n-2) – Fig. 6 – [0080] – “gate block corresponding to the n−2-th pixel row P(n−2)”) has a second length in the first direction, and
the first length is greater than the second length ([0080] – “The straight gate block can have a first length extending from an outer periphery of the straight section of the display area to the outer periphery of the non-display area and the atypical gate block can have a second length extending from an outer periphery of the curved section of the display area to the outer periphery of the non-display area. The first length can be larger than the second length” – Figs. 5 and 6 show this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driving parts structure as taught by Kim-2 into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim-2 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0007] - "the
gate driver is embedded in the display panel, the cost for a drive IC can be reduced".
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Kim-2, and Su (US 20190073946 A1 - hereinafter Su).
Regarding claim 7, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Kim-2, teaches claim 6 from which claim 7 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Kim-2 do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Su teaches
(previously presented) The display device of claim 6, wherein the first
driving part ([0024] – “first driving transistor 31”) has a third length in the second direction ([0024] – “Y direction”), the second driving part ([0024] – “the second driving transistor 32”) has a fourth length in the second direction (Y), and the third length is less than the fourth length ([0024] – “the width-length ratio of the first driving transistor 31 is set to be greater than that of the second driving transistor 32”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driving parts structure as taught by Su into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Kim-2.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Su in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0024] – “the smaller the width-length ratio of the driving transistor is, the smaller the change of the width-length ratio of the driving transistor caused by the bending will be, so that the change of the width-length ratio of the second driving transistor in the second display area, caused by the bending, can be reduced, and a difference between the driving currents of the driving transistors in the first display area and the second display area due to the bending is reduced, thereby improving the brightness uniformity.”
Claims 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Shima (US 20170221435 A1 – hereinafter Shima).
Regarding claim 9, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, and Choi, teaches claim 8 from which claim 9 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Shima teaches
(previously presented) The display device of claim 8, wherein
the first driver (41 – Fig. 13 – [0082] – “second shift register 41”) and the second driver (43 – Fig. 13 – [0081] – “power supply circuit 43”) are disposed adjacent to each other in the first direction (X – Fig. 13 – [0083] – “first direction X”), and
the third drivers (42A and 42B – Fig. 13 – [0082] – “second buffer circuits 42A and 42B”) are disposed adjacent to each other in the second direction (Y – Fig. 13 – [0083] – “second direction Y”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the first, second, and third drivers structure as taught by Shima into Tian.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Shima in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0004] - "the
circuit layout of the peripheral area must be designed in some way to reduce the width
of the frame".
Regarding claim 13, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, and Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 13 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Shima teaches
(original) The display device of claim 1, wherein
the driving part (GDC) further comprises:
a first driving line (WL3 – Fig. 12 – [0089] – “line WL3 to which voltage VSS is applied” – this is a driving line) electrically connected to the first driving part (30 – Fig. 11 – [0029] – “first driver unit 3 comprises a plurality of first circuit units 30” – Fig. 11 shows this),
at least one second driving line (WL4 – Fig. 12 – [0089] – “line WL4 to which voltage VDD1” – this is a driving line) extended from the first driving line (WL1) and electrically connected to the second driving part (40 – Fig. 8 – [0029] – “second driver unit 4 comprises a plurality of second circuit units 40”), and the second driving line (WL4) is disposed farther from the first display region (DA – this corresponds to the first display region) than the first driving line (WL3 – Fig. 12 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driving line positions as taught by Shima into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Shima in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Shima, teaches claim 13 from which claim 14 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, Shima teaches
(original) The display device of claim 13, wherein
the at least one second driving line (Sa – Fig, 11 - [0106] – “lead line Sa” ” – this is considered a driving line) includes second driving lines (Sa1 – Fig. 11 – [0106] – “lead line Sa comprises a first portion Sa1 intersecting with the scanning lines GD and the first power line LP1 between horizontal circuit H3 and the fourth line WL4, and a second portion Sa2 intersecting with the first to fourth lines WL1 to WL4), and among the second driving lines (Sa), a second driving line (WL4) adjacent to the first display region (DA – this corresponds to the first display region) is disposed farther from the first display region (DA) than the first driving line (WL3 – Fig. 11 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driving line structure as taught by Shima into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Shima in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 9.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Shima, and Lee et al. (US 20210333556 A1 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 10, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Shima, teaches claim 9 from which claim 10 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Shima do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
(original) The display device of claim 9, wherein the second driver (SDC2 –
Fig. 5 – [0107] – “second scan driving circuit unit SDC2”) and the third drivers (SDC3 – Fig. 5 – [0107] – “third scan driving circuit unit SDC3”) are disposed adjacent in the first direction (DR1 – Fig. 5 – {0108] – “first direction DR1” – Fig. 5 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second and third driver positioning structure as taught by Lee into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Shima.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0005] - "In order
to provide a more realistic augmented reality, the number and the size of virtual images
provided to the eyes of the user need to be increased. To this end, the area of the display device actually being viewed by the user, i.e., the field-of-view (FOV) of the user, needs to be widened".
Regarding claim 11, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Shima, and Lee, teaches claim 10 from which claim 11 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Shima do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
(original) The display device of claim 10, wherein a maximum length in the
second direction (DR2 – Fig. 5 – [0108] – “second direction DR2”) of each of the first driver (SDC1 – Fig. 5 – [0107] – “first scan driving circuit unit SDC3”), the second driver (SDC2), and the third drivers (SDC3) of the first driver (SDC1) is equal to each other (Fig. 5 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driver structure as taught by Lee into Tian and Shima.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Shima, Lee, and Su.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Shima, Lee, and Su, teaches claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Lee do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Shima teaches
(original) The display device of claim 11, wherein: the maximum length in the second direction (Y) of the first driver (41) of the second driving part (40 - Fig. 8- [0029] - "second driver unit 4 comprises a plurality of second circuit units 40") is greater than the maximum length in the second direction (Y) of the second driver (43) of the second driving part (40); and
the maximum length in the second direction (Y) of the second driver (43) of the
second driving part (40) is greater than the maximum length in the second
direction (Y) of the third drivers (42A and 42B - Fig. 13 - [0082] - "second buffer
circuits 42A and 42B") of the second driving part (40).
However, in an analogous art, Su also teaches ([0024] - "the width-length ratio of the first driving transistor 31 is set to be greater than that of the second driving transistor 32").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driver length structure
as taught by Shima and reinforced by Su into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of
Shima, reinforced by Su in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result
of [0004] - "the circuit layout of the peripheral area must be designed in some way to
reduce the width of the frame" and reinforced by Su as stated above in claim 7.
Claims 15-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee-258, Kim, Won, Choi, Aygun, and Dong et al. (US 20230061339 A1 – hereinafter Dong).
Regarding independent claim 15, Tian teaches:
(currently amended) A display device ([0006] – “Embodiments of this
application provide a display panel and a display device”) comprising:
a display panel (10 – Fig. 1 – [0109] – “flexible display 10”) in which a display region (DA – Fig. 2 – [0112] – “display panel includes a display region DA”) and a non-display region (PA – Fig. 2 – [0112] – “peripheral region PA”) adjacent to the display region (DA) are defined on a plane, wherein
the display panel (10) includes:
a plurality of scan lines extending along a first direction, the plurality of scan lines comprising a first scan line and a second scan line; and
a plurality of data lines extending along a second direction intersecting the first direction, the plurality of data lines comprising a first data line and a second data line,
the display region includes:
a first display region; and
a second display region more adjacent to the non-display region than the first display region, and including an edge region and a corner region, the edge region and the corner region each includes:
a first region in which a light emission element and a pixel driving circuit electrically connected to the light emission element are disposed; and
a second region in which a driving part is disposed,
a length in the first direction of the second region defined in the edge region is greater than a length in the first direction of the second region defined in the corner region,
the driving part in the edge region is connected to the first scan line,
the driving part in the corner region is connected to the second scan line,
a shape of the driving part in the edge region and a shape of the driving part in the corner region are different from each other,
the display panel (10) further includes:
a first pixel (PX1) disposed in the first display region (DA1), the first pixel (PX1) comprising a first driving transistor (T1 – [0153] – “first transistor T1 is a drive transistor”) and a first switching transistor (T2 – [0151] – “second transistor T2 is a switching transistor”), the first switching transistor (T2) being configured to transmit a first data signal ([0151] – “The second transistor T2 is configured to transmit, to the first transistor T1 based on a switching voltage input to the scanning line, a data signal input from the data line”) provided through the first data line to the first driving transistor (T1) based on a first driving signal provided by the driving part in the edge region through the first scan line; and
a second pixel (PX2) disposed in the second display region (DA2), the second pixel (PX2) comprising a second driving transistor and a second switching transistor, the second switching transistor being configured to transmit a second data signal provided through the second data line to the second driving transistor based on a second driving signal provided by the driving part in the corner region through the second scan line ([0148] – “FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram of a structure of a pixel unit according to an embodiment of this application. As shown in FIG. 8, the pixel unit includes light-emitting devices 701, bottom drive circuits 702, and anode leads 703” – this describes that each pixel has a drive circuit with the same components as described in PX1 therefore matching the elements of PX2),
the second region in which the driving part is disposed includes an inner boundary line (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘CP2’) and an outer boundary line (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘CP1’), and
an inner boundary line (CP2) of the corner region is spaced apart from a center of the first display region (11 – Fig. 2 – [0052] – “display region 11”) farther than an inner boundary line of the edge region (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘CP3’).
PNG
media_image5.png
636
833
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tian does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-258 teaches
a plurality of scan lines ([0044] – “signal lines SL1, SL2, SLp, SLn, 133, and 171 may include a first scan line SL1 transferring a first scan signal Sn, a second scan line SL2 transferring a second scan signal Sn′” – this is a plurality of scan lines – hereinafter ‘SL’) extending along a first direction ([0071] – “the first scan line SL1, the second scan line SL2, the previous scan line SLp, the next scan line SLn, the emission control line 133, and the initialization voltage line VIL that extend in a first direction” – Fig. 4 shows this), the plurality of scan lines (SL) comprising a first scan line (SL1 – Fig. 3 – [0044] – “first scan line SL1 transferring a first scan signal Sn)
and a second scan line (SL2 – Fig. 3 – [0044] – “second scan line SL2 transferring a second scan signal Sn′”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the scan line structure as taught by Lee-258 into Tian.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee-258 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0005] – “a display apparatus driven by a thin film transistor including a silicon semiconductor and a thin film transistor including an oxide semiconductor to reduce power consumption of the display apparatus and allow a high integration degree at the same time.”
Tian and Lee-258 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
a plurality of data lines (D – Fig. 8 – [0188] – “data lines D may extend from the pixel area PXA substantially in the second direction DR2 into the peripheral area PPA”) extending along a second direction (DR2 – Fig. 8 – “data lines D may extend from the pixel area PXA substantially in the second direction DR2 into the peripheral area PPA”) intersecting the first direction (DR1 – Fig. 8 shows this), the plurality of data lines (D) comprising a first data line (Da – Fig. 8 – [0189] – “first data line Da”) and a second data line (Db – Fig. 8 – [0189] – “second data line Db”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the data line structure as taught by Kim into Tian and Lee-258.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0004] – “The organic light emitting device may include a plurality of pixels including organic light emitting devices. Wiring lines may be provided to each pixel to supply various signals thereto. These wiring lines may be disposed in various manners to supply signals to each pixel.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Tian, Lee-258, and Kim do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Won teaches
the display region (DA) includes:
a first display region (DA1 – Fig. 4A – [n0084] – “first display area DA1”); and
a second display region (SDA1 – Fig. 4A – [n0084] – “second display area DA2”) more adjacent to the non-display region (PA) than the first display region (DA1), and including an edge region (E1 – Fig. 1 – [n0060] – “first to fourth edges E1, E2, E3 and E4”) and a corner region (CP – Fig. 4A – [n0087] – “corner portion CP”), the edge region (E1) and the corner region (CP) each includes:
a first region (DA3 – Fig. 8A – [n0127] – “third display area DA3” – this corresponds to the first region) in which a light emission element (EU – Fig. 10A – [n0072] – “light emitting element EU”) and a pixel driving circuit (PC – Fig. 10a – [n0072] – “pixel circuit PC connected to the light emitting element EU”) electrically connected to the light emission element (EU – Fig. 10A shows this) are disposed; and
a second region (DA2 – Fig. 8A – [n0127] – “display area DA2” – this corresponds to the second region – pixels PX3 and PX2 respectively correspond to the same type of pixel PX3) in which a driving part (DR – [n0082] – “driver DR”) is disposed ([n0066] – “it is also possible to allow the pixel PX to be stably disposed in the area in which the driver is disposed” – the driver and pixel can be disposed in the second region DA2),
a length in the first direction of the second region (DA2) defined in the edge region (E1) is greater than a length in the first direction of the second region (DA2) defined in the corner region (Fig. 6A-1 annotated, see below, shows this).
PNG
media_image6.png
466
836
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light emission regions structure as taught by Won into Tian, Lee-258, and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Won in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of having a display device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Tian, Lee-258, Kim, and Won do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Choi teaches
the driving part (310 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “The first set of driver circuits includes the side SCAN/EM drivers 310”) in the edge region (122 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “the side bezel 122” – this is an edge region) is connected to the first scan line (324 – Fig. 3B – [0053] – “side SCAN/EM drivers 310 each transmit a scan signal and an emission signal to a corresponding row of pixels through a signal line 324”),
the driving part (320 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “The second set of driver circuits includes the corner SCAN/EM drivers 320”) in the corner region (132 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “corner bezel 132” – this is a corner region) is connected to the second scan line (choi (322 – Fig. 3B – [0055] – “corner SCAN/EM drivers 320 each transmit the scan signal and the emission signal to a corresponding row of pixels through a signal line 322”),
a shape of the driving part (310) in the edge region (122) and a shape of the driving part (320) in the corner region (132) are different from each other ([0070] – “the width W.sub.t of the corner SCAN/EM driver 320 is less than the width W.sub.s of the side SCAN/EM driver 310” – Fig. 3C shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driving part structure as taught by Choi into Tian, Lee-258, and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Choi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0007] – “To reduce the width of the corner regions of the bezel, the size of the driver circuits can be reduced. Specifically, the width of the driver circuits can be reduced, while the length of the driver circuits can be increased. By reducing the width of the driver circuits, the corner bezel size can be reduced. Reducing corner bezel size can result in a greater size of the display active area in the panel, and a corresponding higher screen to body ratio in the electronic device.”
Tian, Lee-258, Kim, and Won do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Aygun teaches
the second region (74 – Fig. 6A – [55 = 8:18-22] – “FIGS. 6A and 6B show an arrangement that allows the gate driver circuitry to at least partially be formed in the light-emitting active area of the display. As shown in FIG. 6A, the active area includes a regular pixel-density region 72 and a low pixel-density region 74” – this corresponds to the second region) in which the driving part (20B-2 – Fig. 6A – {[34 = 4:57-58] – “Gate driver circuitry 20B may include gate drivers and emission drivers”, {[39 = 5:54-57] – “first gate driver circuitry 20B-1 is formed on the left side of the active area AA and second gate driver circuitry 20B-2 is formed on the right side of the active area AA”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driver and second region structure as taught by Aygun into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, and Won.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Aygun in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [6:37] – “To reduce the size of the inactive area.”
Tian, Lee-258, Choi, Kim, Won, and Aygun do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Dong teaches
is disposed includes an inner boundary line (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘CP2’) and an outer boundary line (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘CP1’), and
an inner boundary line (CP2) of the corner region is spaced apart from a center of the first display region (11 – Fig. 2 – [0052] – “display region 11”) farther than an inner boundary line of the edge region (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘CP3’).
PNG
media_image5.png
636
833
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the boundary structure as taught by Dong into Tian, Lee-258, Choi, Kim, Won, and Aygun.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Dong in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0002] – “forming a curved surface at a periphery of a display device such as the mobile phone, the tablet computer, and the like, the display range of the display device can be visually increased, for example, a full-screen display effect can be achieved, and the user's sensory experience can be improved.”
Regarding dependent claim 16, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Won, Choi, Aygun, and Dong, teaches claim 15 from which claim 16 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Dong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Won teaches
(original) The display device of claim 15, wherein a length (Fig. 6A
annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LT3’) in the first direction (DR1 – Fig. 6A annotated, see below – [n0097] – “first direction DR1”) of the first region (DA3) defined in the edge region (E1 – Fig. 6A annotated, see below) is less than a length (Fig. 6A annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LT4’) in the first direction (DR1) of the first region (DA3) defined in the corner region (CP).
PNG
media_image7.png
466
836
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the first region structure as taught by Won into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Dong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Won in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 15.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Won, Aygun, and Dong, teaches claim 15 from which claim 17 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Won, Aygun, and Dong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Choi teaches
(original) The display device of claim 15, wherein
the driving part ([0008] – “The long dimension of each of the drivers of the first set of drivers is greater than the long dimension of each of the drivers of the second set of drivers” – hereinafter ‘DP’) comprises:
a first driving part (310 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “The first set of driver circuits includes the side SCAN/EM drivers 310”) disposed in the edge region (118 – Fig. 1 – [0036] – “right and left side edges 118”); and
a second driving part (320 – Fig. 3B – [0051] – “The second set of driver circuits includes the corner SCAN/EM drivers 320”) disposed in the corner region (110 – Fig. 1 – [0036] – “right and left side top corners 110”), and
a first length (Fig. 3B annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘310-L’) in the first direction (Fig. 3B annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DR1’) of the first driving part (310) is greater than a second length (Fig. 3B annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘320-L’) in the first direction (DR1) of the second driving part (320) by a third length (Fig. 3B annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘L3’).
PNG
media_image8.png
583
863
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driving part structure as taught by Choi into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Won, Aygun, and Dong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Choi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0007] – “the corner bezel size can be reduced. Reducing corner bezel size can result in a greater size of the display active area in the panel, and a corresponding higher screen to body ratio in the electronic device.”
Regarding dependent claim 18, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Won, Choi, Aygun, and Dong, teaches claim 17 from which claim 18 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Won, Aygun, and Dong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 18.
However, in an analogous art, Choi teaches
(original) The display device of claim 17, wherein the length (310-L) in the
first direction (DR1) of the second region (Fig. 3 B annotated, see above – hereinafter ‘SR’) defined in the edge region (Fig. 3 B annotated, see above – hereinafter ‘ER’) is greater than the length (320-L) in the first direction (DR1) of the second region (SR) defined in the corner region (Fig. 3 B annotated, see above – hereinafter ‘CR’) by the third length (L3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driving part structure as taught by Choi into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Won, Aygun, and Dong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Choi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 17.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Won, Choi, Aygun, and Dong, teaches claim 15 from which claim 20 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Dong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Won teaches
(original) The display device of claim 15, wherein
the display panel comprises:
a base layer (SUB – Fig. 10A – [n0155] – “substrate SUB may include a first base layer 101 , a first barrier layer 102 , a second base layer 103 , and a second barrier layer 104 , which are sequentially stacked one on another”);
a circuit layer (Fig. 10A annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘CL’) disposed on the base layer (SUB), and having the pixel driving circuit (PC – Fig. 10A – [n0072] – “pixel circuit PC”) and the driving part (DR – Fig. 10A – [n0082] – “driver DR”) disposed therein; and
a light emission element layer (EU – Fig. 10A – [n0082] – “light emitting element EU”) disposed on the circuit layer (CL), and including the light emission element (EU1 – Fig. 10A – [n0133] – “light emitting element EU1”).
PNG
media_image9.png
710
1004
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the display panel structure as taught by Won into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Dong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Won in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 15.
Regarding dependent claim 21, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Won, Choi, Aygun, and Dong, teaches claim 15 from which claim 21 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Dong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 21.
However, in an analogous art, Won teaches
(original) The display device of claim 15, wherein
in the corner region (CP), the first region (DA3) comprises:
a first sub-region (Fig. 8B annotated, see below – hereinafter DA3-1); and
a second sub-region (Fig. 8B annotated, see below – hereinafter DA3-2) defined between the first sub-region (DA3-1) and the second region (DA2), and
the pixel driving circuit (DR – Fig. 8 shows this) is disposed in the first sub-region (DA3-1).
PNG
media_image10.png
683
697
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the corner region structure as taught by Won into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Dong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Won in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 3.
Regarding dependent claim 22, Tian, as modified by Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, Aygun, and Dong, teaches claim 15 from which claim 22 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Aygun do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 22.
However, in an analogous art, Dong teaches
(previously presented) The display device of claim 15, wherein:
a distance from the first display region (11) to the outer boundary line (CP1) of the second region (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘SEA2’) in the edge region (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘EDGE’) is substantially equal to a distance from the first display region (11) to the outer boundary line of the second region (SEA2) in the corner region (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘CR’); and
a distance from the first display region (11) to the inner boundary line (CP2) of the second region (SEA2) in the corner region (CR) is greater than a distance from the first display region (11) to an inner boundary line (CP3) of the second region (SEA2) in the edge region (EDGE – Fig. 3 annotated shows this).
PNG
media_image5.png
636
833
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the boundary structure as taught by Dong into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Choi, and Aygun.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Dong in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 15.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee-258, Kim, Won, Choi, Aygun, Dong, and Su.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Tian, as modified by Lee-258, Kim, Won, Choi, Aygun, and Dong, teaches claim 17 from which claim 19 depends. Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Won, Choi, Aygun, and Dong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Su teaches
(currently amended) The display device of claim 17, wherein a
maximum length in the second direction (Y – Fig. 4 – [0024] – “Y direction”) intersecting the first direction (X – Fig. 4 – [0024] – “X direction”) of the first driving part (31 – [0024] – “first driving transistor 31”) is less than a maximum length in the second direction (Y) of the second driving part (32 – [0024] – “the width-length ratio of the first driving transistor 31 is set to be greater than that of the second driving transistor 32”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the driving parts structure as taught by Su into Tian, Lee-258, Kim, Won, Choi, Aygun, and Dong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Su in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 12.
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20170116923 A1 and US 20220085305 A1 are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including the driver structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897