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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi (US 2022/0328603).
Regarding claim 1, Shi teaches a display substrate in figs. 1, 2, 13-15 and 27, comprising:
a base substrate (1) and a plurality of sub-pixels (see par. 93) arranged on the base substrate, wherein at least one sub-pixel comprises a sub-pixel driving circuit (3) and a light-emitting element (4) (see par. 93), the light-emitting element (4) comprises an anode pattern, and the anode pattern is coupled to the sub-pixel driving circuit (see par. 108); the display substrate further comprises: a plurality of pixel definition pattens (PDL; see figs. 13 and 14B and par. 111),
an orthographic projection of at least one pixel definition pattern (OPH) onto the base substrate at least partially overlapping with an orthographic projection of a boundary of a corresponding anode pattern (411/412) onto the base substrate (see figs. 15 and 27 and pars. 155-158).
Regarding claim 2, Shi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Shi teaches the orthographic projection of the pixel definition pattern onto the base substrate fully covers the orthographic projection of the boundary of the corresponding anode pattern onto the base substrate (see fig. 27 and par. 158).
Regarding claim 3, Shi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Shi teaches at least a portion of the orthographic projection of the pixel definition pattern onto the base substrate has an annular structure, and the annular structure is configured to define an opening region of a corresponding sub-pixel (see par. 158 and fig. 27).
Regarding claim 19, Shi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Fig. 1 of Shi teaches the display substrate comprises a first display region (AA1) and a second display region (AA2), the second display region (AA2) is located on at least one side of the first display region (AA1), and a light transmittance of the first display region is greater than a light transmittance of the second display region, and the plurality of pixel definition patterns is located in the first display region (see par. 100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “at least a portion of the orthographic projection of the pixel definition pattern onto the base substrate has a circular-annular structure.”
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “the anode pattern comprises an anode main body and an anode connection member coupled to each other, and the anode connection member is coupled to a corresponding sub-pixel driving circuit; the pixel definition pattern comprises a first sub-pattern and a second sub- pattern coupled to each other, an orthographic projection of the first sub-pattern onto the base substrate has an annular structure, the orthographic projection of the first sub- pattern onto the base substrate covers an orthographic projection of a boundary of a corresponding anode main body onto the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of the second sub-pattern onto the base substrate covers an orthographic projection of a corresponding anode connection member onto the base substrate.”
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the pixel definition pattern comprises a black pixel definition pattern; an orthographic projection of the pixel definition pattern onto the base substrate at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of a corresponding sub-pixel driving circuit onto the base substrate.”
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the display substrate further comprises a transparent data line, and at least a portion of an orthographic projection of the transparent data line onto the base substrate is located between orthographic projections of adjacent pixel definition patterns onto the base substrate.”
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the display substrate further comprises a transparent reset signal line, and at least a portion of an orthographic projection of the transparent reset signal line onto the base substrate is located between orthographic projections of adjacent pixel definition patterns onto the base substrate.”
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the display substrate comprises an initialization signal line, the initialization signal line comprises a transparent initialization portion, and at least a portion of an orthographic projection of the transparent initialization portion onto the base substrate is located between orthographic projections of adjacent pixel definition patterns onto the base substrate.”
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the sub-pixel driving circuit comprises a data written-in transistor, the display substrate comprises a first scanning line, a gate electrode of the data written-in transistor is coupled to a corresponding first scanning line, the first scanning line comprises a first transparent scanning portion, an orthographic projection of the first transparent scanning portion onto the base substrate is located between orthographic projections of adjacent pixel definition patterns onto the base substrate.”
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the sub-pixel driving circuit comprises a compensation transistor, the display substrate comprises a second scanning line, a gate electrode of the compensation transistor is coupled to a corresponding second scanning line, the second scanning line comprises a second transparent scanning portion, an orthographic projection of the second transparent scanning portion onto the base substrate is located between orthographic projections of adjacent pixel definition patterns onto the base substrate.”
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the display substrate comprises a light-emission control signal line, the light-emission control signal line comprises a transparent light-emission control portion, at least a portion of an orthographic projection of the transparent light-emission control portion onto the base substrate is located between orthographic projections of adjacent pixel definition patterns onto the base substrate.”
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the display substrate further comprises a power source line, the power source line comprises a transparent power source portion, and an orthographic projection of the transparent power source portion onto the base substrate is located between orthographic projections of adjacent pixel definition patterns onto the base substrate.”
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the display substrate further comprises a cathode layer located on a side of the light-emitting element away from the base substrate, the cathode layer comprises a plurality of cathode openings, and at least a portion of an orthographic projection of at least one cathode opening onto the base substrate is located between orthographic projections of adjacent pixel definition patterns onto the base substrate.” Claim 15 includes all the limitations of claim 14.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “wherein the display substrate further comprises an encapsulation layer and a plurality of black matrix patterns, the encapsulation layer is located between the plurality of black matrix patterns and the base substrate, an orthographic projection of at least one black matrix pattern onto the base substrate at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of a corresponding pixel definition pattern onto the base substrate.” Claims 16-18 include all the limitations of the claim 16.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “a sensor located on a non-display side of the display substrate, wherein an orthographic projection of the sensor onto the display substrate overlaps with the first display region of the display substrate.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Niki Tram Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on (703)872-9306. 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.
/NIKI H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818