DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on May 16, 2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement
The present office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this office action are claims 1-20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0043938) in view of Song (US 2020/0058728).
With respect to Claim 1, Lee shows (Fig. 1-12) most aspects of the current invention including a display apparatus comprising:
a sub-pixel circuit (P) in a display area (DA) and comprising a plurality of transistors (T1-T2)
a data line (DL) electrically connected to one of the plurality of transistors (T2) of the sub-pixel circuit and extending in a first direction in the display area;
a voltage layer (PL) overlapping the data line;
a light-emitting diode (OLED) comprising a first electrode (310) overlapping the voltage layer, an emission layer (320) on the first electrode, and a second electrode (330) on the emission layer
However, Lee does not disclose wherein the voltage layer having a width greater than a width of the data line.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Song further teaches (see in particular Fig 11) a display apparatus comprising a sub-pixel circuit (P) in a display area (DA) and comprising a plurality of transistors, a data line (DL) electrically connected to one of the plurality of transistors (T1) of the sub-pixel circuit, and a voltage layer (PL’), wherein the voltage layer having a width greater than a width of the data line. Song teaches the voltage layer may may function as a driving voltage line transferring the driving voltage or a data line transferring a data signal (par 193).
Furthermore, it is also noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the voltage layer having a width greater than a width of the data line. The courts have held that differences in widths will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such widths are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the voltage layer having a width greater than a width of the data line, and similar widths are known in the art (see e.g. Song), it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Lee in view of Song.
Criticality: The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed widths or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen widths or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen ratios are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to Claim 3, Song shows (Fig. 11) further comprising a common voltage line (161) arranged in the display area and electrically connected to the second electrode of the light-emitting diode, wherein the voltage layer has a same voltage level as a voltage level of the common voltage line.
With respect to Claim 4, Song shows (Fig. 11) wherein the common voltage line comprises a first common voltage line (161) and a second common voltage line (171), which extend to cross each other in the display area, and the voltage layer corresponds to a portion of the first common voltage line.
With respect to Claim 5, Song shows (Fig. 11) further comprising an insulating layer (118) between any one of the first common voltage line and the second common voltage line and the voltage layer, wherein the voltage layer (PL’) is electrically connected to the one of the first common voltage line and the second common voltage line through a contact hole in the insulating layer.
With respect to Claim 6, Song shows (Fig. 11) further comprising a driving voltage line (PL) in the display area and electrically connected to the sub-pixel circuit, wherein the voltage layer has a same voltage level as a voltage level of the driving voltage line.
With respect to Claim 7, Song shows (Fig. 11) wherein the driving voltage line comprises a first driving voltage line and a second driving voltage line (PL1_1 – PL1_7), which extend to cross each other in the display area, the voltage layer (PL’) is electrically connected to a first driving voltage line through a contact hole defined in an insulating layer (117) between the first driving voltage line and the voltage layer.
With respect to Claim 8, Lee shows (Fig. 1-12) wherein the voltage layer overlaps an emission area of the light-emitting diode.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0043938) in view of Song (US 2020/0058728) and in further view of Qui (US 2022/0123094).
With respect to Claim 2, Lee in view of Song show most aspects of the current invention. Furthermore, Lee shows (Fig. 1-12) wherein the voltage layer includes a conductive material (par 122). However, the combination of references do not show wherein the voltage layer comprises a transparent conductive material.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Qui teaches (see in particular Fig 1A,4,7) a display apparatus comprising a sub-pixel circuit (P) in a display area (DA) and comprising a plurality of transistors, a voltage layer (15), wherein the voltage layer comprises a transparent conductive material. Qui teaches using a transparent conductive material as the voltage layer so as to increase the light transmittance of the light transmitting display region (par 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the voltage layer comprises a transparent conductive material in device of Lee in view of Song, as taught by Qui, because using a transparent conductive material as the voltage layer so as to increase the light transmittance of the light transmitting display region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed. Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a display apparatus comprising a second light-emitting diode in a second display area inside the first display area and electrically connected to a second sub-pixel circuit in an area different from the second display area, and a conductive bus line electrically connecting the second sub-pixel circuit and the second light-emitting diode to each other.
Examiner's comments: the closest prior art references (Lee US 2019/0043938; Song US 2020/0058728) are all directed in part to a display apparatus comprising a first light-emitting diode electrically connected to a first sub-pixel circuit in a first display area, a second light-emitting diode in a second display area, and a data line electrically connected to one of a plurality of transistors of the first sub-pixel circuit, similar to the instant invention.
However, the following references do neither anticipates nor renders obvious the following features steps of a second light-emitting diode in a second display area inside the first display area and electrically connected to a second sub-pixel circuit in an area different from the second display area, and a conductive bus line electrically connecting the second sub-pixel circuit and the second light-emitting diode to each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTON A BRASFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-0804. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/Q.A.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814