Attorney’s Docket Number: B0862-P14841US01
Filing Date: 2/1/2024
Claimed Priority Dates: 12/26/2022 (PCT/CN2022/141833)
Inventors: Li et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 9/29/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Election
Applicant's election with traverse of the species reading on the driving circuit in figs. 5A-5E and the structure layer in figs. 6A-6E, in the reply filed on 9/29/2026, is acknowledged. The applicant indicates that claims 1-8 and 17-21 read on the elected species. The examiner agrees. Accordingly, claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The applicant argues that the examiner’s species lack-of-unity analysis is procedurally improper because the distinguishing features of the species are not expressly recited in the current claims.
This is not found persuasive because the absence of an express recitation of a distinguishing feature does not, by itself, preclude a lack-of-unity requirement between species in a national-stage application under 35 U.S.C. § 371. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.475(e), the determination of unity of invention is made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. Further, per MPEP§1850, the claimed subject matter must be considered in light of the specification and drawings when identifying and evaluating the disclosed species. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion that the species requirement is procedurally improper solely because the distinguishing features are not expressly recited in the claim is not persuasive.
On the other hand, the examiner’s analysis in paragraph 14 of paper no. 4 identifies the respective special technical features of the species encompassed by the claims, as set forth in the specification and drawings. These include the single conductive portion input, the plurality of conductive portion inputs, the electrodes arranged in the same or different directions, the third electrode 60, and the redundant electrode. These features identify the respective technical contributions of the species and provide the basis for determining whether the species share the same or corresponding special technical features. As explained in paragraph 14, the identified species do not share the same or corresponding special technical features and, therefore, do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
For all of the above, the requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
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 fourth and fifth electrodes recited in claim 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US2022/0121057).
Regarding claim 1, Wang shows all aspects of the instant invention including a display substrate comprising:
A base substrate 10, and
A driving structure layer on a side of the base substrate
wherein:
The display substrate comprises display 101 and non-display 104 regions
The driving structure comprises an electrode layer and a conductor layer
The electrode layer comprises first (EL1) 25 and second (EL2) 21/221 electrodes adjacent to each other in the non-display region
A potential of the first electrode is lower than a potential of the second electrode
The conductor and electrode layers are in different layers
The conductor layer comprises first (CL1) 31 and second (CL2) 231 conductor portions
CL1 31 is electrically connected to EL1 25
CL2 231 is electrically connected to EL2 21/221, and
An area of orthographic projection of CL1 31 on the base substrate is greater than an area of orthographic projection of CL2 231
Regarding claim 2, Wang (see, e.g., fig. 7) further shows the display substrate wherein:
EL1 comprises first (EL1a) 252 and second (EL1b) 251 conductive portions
EL1a 252 and EL1b 251 are in different layers and are electrically connected through the CL1 31
EL2 comprises third (EL2a) 221 and fourth (EL2b) 21 conductive portions
EL2a 221 and EL2b 21 are in different layers and are electrically connected through the CL2 231, and
EL1a 252 and the EL2a 221 are in a same layer, and EL1b 251 and EL2b 21 are in a same layer
Regarding claim 17, Wang (see, e.g., fig. 7) further shows the display substrate wherein orthographic projections of CL1 31 and EL1 25 on the base substrate overlap to form a first overlapping region.
Regarding claim 18, Wang (see, e.g., fig. 7) shows the display substrate wherein CL1 31 is connected to EL1 25 through a first via hole 243, and an orthographic projection of the via hole on the substrate is located in the first overlapping region.
Regarding claim 19, Wang (see, e.g., ¶0041) teaches that CL1 31 and CL2 231 comprise a metal oxide or a metal.
Regarding claim 21, Wang (see, e.g., fig. 27) shows a display device comprising the display substrate.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Initially, and with respect to claims 3, 6 and 20, note that limitations in claims with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be used do not differentiate the claimed device from a prior-art device if the prior-art device teaches all structural limitations in the claims and the functional limitations are found to be inherent in the prior art device. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in device claims, and not the patentability of its functions (909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). As stated in Best,
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Note that the applicant has burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang.
Regarding claim 3, Wang (see, e.g., fig. 7) further shows the display substrate wherein the electrode layer further includes a third electrode (EL3) 50 between EL1 25 and EL2 21/221, and EL3 is insulated from CL2 231. However, the limitation requiring that the potential of EL3 50 be lower than the potential of EL2 is not expressly disclosed by Wang. Nevertheless, the limitation is directed to a relative voltage operating condition of the disclosed electrical components, rather than a recited difference in their physical structures.
Regarding claim 6, Wang shows the display substrate including EL3 50, CL2 231 and CL1 31. Wang, however, is silent with respect to the electric field intensity between EL3 and CL2, and between CL1 and CL2. Nevertheless, these limitations are directed to relative voltage operating conditions of the disclosed electrical components, rather than a recited difference in their physical structures.
Regarding claim 20, Wang (see, e.g., figs. 7-8) further shows the display substrate wherein:
The electrode layer comprises fourth (EL4) 246/247 and fifth (EL5) 25(32) electrodes adjacent to each other in the non-display region, and
The distance between EL4 24 and EL5 25(32) is less than the distance between EL1 25(31) and EL2 21/221
However, the limitation requiring that the potential difference between EL4 and EL5 be less than the potential difference between EL1 and EL2 is not expressly disclosed by the Wang. Nevertheless, these limitations are directed to relative voltage operating conditions of the disclosed electrical components, rather than a recited difference in their physical structures.
In reference to the language in claims 3, 6 and 20, referring to the functions of the device, it is noted that Wang shows all structural aspects of the display substrate according to the claimed invention (see paragraphs 10-11 above) and that providing specific potentials between the electrodes, is a function that does not affect the structure of the final device. Furthermore, Wang’s device is capable of performing the claimed functions. For instance, applying a positive voltage to EL2 and grounding EL3.
Regarding claim 4, Wang (see, e.g., fig. 7) shows that EL3 50 is in a same layer as EL1a 252.
As to the grounds of rejection of claims 3, 4, 6 and 20, under section 103, see MPEP § 2112, which discusses the handling of functional language in the claims and recommends the alternative (§ 102/ § 103) grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 and 8 are 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.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
October 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights