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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on October 28th, 2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention of Group II, claims 16-18 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-15 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 28th, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/28/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The 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 § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites: " A display apparatus comprising the display panel according to claim 1".
The intended use of the display panel of claim 1 in a display apparatus fails to further limit the device of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 10-13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2020/0133414, hereinafter as Lee ‘414) in view of Cha (US 2021/0043692, hereinafter as Cha ‘692).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee ‘414 teaches a display panel, comprising:
a fingerprint recognition region (Fig. 1, (FPA); [0045]);
a display region (Fig. 1, (DA); [0045]) arranged as at least partially surrounding the fingerprint recognition region (FPA);
a substrate (Fig. 5, (SUB); [0058]) arranged in the fingerprint recognition region and the display region;
an active layer (Fig. 5, (121); [0060]) arranged on a side of the substrate and comprising a plurality of active units distributed in an array on the substrate; and
a light blocking layer (not shown; see para. [0061]) arranged on a side of the active layer 9121) facing the substrate (SUB) and arranged in the fingerprint recognition region (FPA), wherein the light blocking layer comprises a plurality of light blocking units.
Thus, Lee ‘414 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “along a direction perpendicular to the display panel, orthographic projections of the plurality of light blocking units on the substrate cover orthographic projections of the plurality of active units on the substrate”.
Cha ‘692 teaches along a direction perpendicular to the display panel, orthographic projections of the plurality of light blocking units (Fig. 15, (PHL); [0065]) on the substrate (SUB1) cover orthographic projections of the plurality of active units (111; [0173]) on the substrate SUB1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee ‘414 by having orthographic projections of the plurality of light blocking units on the substrate cover orthographic projections of the plurality of active units on the substrate for the purpose of blocking light from entering the first thin-film transistor layer and the light emitting element layer (see para. [0068]) as suggested by Cha ‘692.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 (Lee ‘414)
Regarding Claim 2, Cha ‘692 teaches the plurality of light blocking units (PHL; [0068]) and the plurality of active units (111; [0173]) are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence, and an orthographic projection of one of the light blocking units (PHL) on the substrate (SUB1) covers an orthographic projection of only one of the active units (111) on the substrate (see Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 10, Cha ‘692 teaches the plurality of light blocking units (PHL; [0068]).
Lee ‘414 and Cha ‘692 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the light blocking layer has a thickness ranging from 10nm to 100nm, and the light blocking layer comprises a material layer with an ultraviolet light transmittance equal to or less than 1%”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the light blocking layer has a thickness ranging from 10nm to 100nm, and the light blocking layer comprises a material layer with an ultraviolet light transmittance equal to or less than 1% on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the light blocking layer has a thickness ranging from 10nm to 100nm, and the light blocking layer comprises a material layer with an ultraviolet light transmittance equal to or less than 1% when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 11, Cha ‘692 teaches the light blocking layer is made of amorphous silicon (see para. [0069]).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (e.g. amorphous silicon material) for the light blocking layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the light blocking layer is made of amorphous silicon when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 12, Cha ‘692 teaches the plurality of light blocking units (PHL; [0068]).
Lee ‘414 and Cha ‘692 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an orthographic projection of each of the light blocking units on the substrate is at least one of a polygon, a circle, an oval, and a belt in shape”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a shape (e.g. a polygon, a circle, an oval, and a belt shape) for the light blocking layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have an orthographic projection of each of the light blocking units on the substrate is at least one of a polygon, a circle, an oval, and a belt in shape when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 13, Cha ‘692 teaches a pixel circuit (TFT; [0086]); wherein an orthographic projection of one of the light blocking units (PHL) on the substrate at least covers an orthographic projection of an active unit (111) of one transistor of the pixel circuit on the substrate (see Fig. 15); and the pixel circuit comprises transistors and one capacitor (see para. [099]).
Lee ‘414 and Cha ‘692 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the pixel circuit comprises seven transistors”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the pixel circuit comprises seven transistors on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the pixel circuit comprises seven transistors when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 14, Cha ‘692 teaches along the direction perpendicular to the display panel, an orthographic projection of one of the light blocking units (PHL) on the substrate covers an orthographic projection of only one of the active units (111) on the substrate (see Fig. 15).
Claims 3-7, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘414 and Cha ‘692 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (US 2021/0305521, hereinafter as Han ‘521).
Regarding Claim 3, Cha ‘692 teaches along the direction perpendicular to the display panel, an orthographic projection of one of the light blocking units (PHL) on the substrate covers orthographic projections of the active units on the substrate (Sub 1).
Thus, Lee ‘414 and Cha ‘692 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “along the direction perpendicular to the display panel, an orthographic projection of one of the light blocking units on the substrate covers orthographic projections of at least two adjacent active units on the substrate”.
Han ‘521 teaches along the direction perpendicular to the display panel, an orthographic projection of one of the light blocking units (Fig. 5, (BML); [0178]) on the substrate covers orthographic projections of at least two adjacent active units (ACT, [0175]) on the substrate (100; [0138]) (see Fig. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee ‘414 and Cha ‘692 by having along the direction perpendicular to the display panel, an orthographic projection of one of the light blocking units on the substrate covers orthographic projections of at least two adjacent active units on the substrate for the purpose of preventing the device characteristics of the thin film transistors from changing due to a photocurrent induced in the semiconductor layer by the external light incident from the side of the substrate (see para. [0178]) as suggested by Han ‘521.
Regarding Claim 4, Han ‘521 teaches a first inorganic layer (Fig. 5, (111); [0167]) arranged between the light blocking layer (BML) and the active layer (ACT), wherein the first inorganic layer comprises at least one of silicon oxide and silicon nitride.
Regarding Claim 5, Han ‘521 teaches a first substrate (101), a second inorganic layer (102) and a second substrate (103) that are stacked, the light blocking layer (BML) and the first inorganic layer (111) are stacked on a side of the second substrate (103) away from the first substrate (101).
Lee ‘414, Cha ‘692 and Han ‘521 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a thickness of the second inorganic layer is less than or equal to a thickness of the first inorganic layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a thickness of the second inorganic layer is less than or equal to a thickness of the first inorganic layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a thickness of the second inorganic layer is less than or equal to a thickness of the first inorganic layer when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 6, Han ‘521 teaches a third inorganic layer (Fig. 5, (104); [0138]) arranged between the second substrate (103) and the light blocking layer (BML).
Lee ‘414, Cha ‘692 and Han ‘521 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “along a stacking direction of film layers of the display panel, the first inorganic layer has a thickness ranging from 100nm to 500nm, the second inorganic layer has a thickness ranging from 100nm to 1000nm, and the third inorganic layer has a thickness ranging 100nm to 1000nm”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first inorganic layer has a thickness ranging from 100nm to 500nm, the second inorganic layer has a thickness ranging from 100nm to 1000nm, and the third inorganic layer has a thickness ranging 100nm to 1000nm on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first inorganic layer has a thickness ranging from 100nm to 500nm, the second inorganic layer has a thickness ranging from 100nm to 1000nm, and the third inorganic layer has a thickness ranging 100nm to 1000nm when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee ‘414, Cha ‘692 and Han ‘521 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “along the stacking direction, thicknesses of the third inorganic layer, the first inorganic layer, and the second inorganic layer increase in sequence”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select thicknesses of the third inorganic layer, the first inorganic layer, and the second inorganic layer increase in sequence on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the thicknesses of the third inorganic layer, the first inorganic layer, and the second inorganic layer increase in sequence when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 9, Han ‘521 teaches a fourth inorganic layer and a fifth inorganic layer are stacked in sequence on a side of the first inorganic layer away from the light blocking layer (BML), and the fourth inorganic layer covers the first inorganic layer (see para. [0167]). Examiner considers the buffer layer (111) is a multilayer structure. Thus the limitation: “a fourth inorganic layer and a fifth inorganic layer are stacked in sequence on a side of the first inorganic layer” is met.
Regarding Claim 15, Han ‘521 teaches a display apparatus comprising the display panel (seer para. [0033]) and a fingerprint recognition element (20; [0120]) corresponding to the fingerprint recognition region arranged in the display panel.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘414, Cha ‘692 and Han ‘521 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ma (US 2019/0067338, hereinafter as Ma ‘338).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee ‘414, Cha ‘692 and Han ‘521 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an amorphous silicon layer is arranged between the second substrate and the second inorganic layer”.
Ma ‘338 teaches an amorphous silicon layer (Fig. 4, (1401); [0066]) is arranged between the second substrate (1402) and the second inorganic layer (130).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee ‘414, Cha ‘692 and Han ‘521 by having an amorphous silicon layer is arranged between the second substrate and the second inorganic layer for the purpose of increasing manufacturing efficiency of AMOLED substrate (see para. [0043]) as suggested by Ma ‘338.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Lim et al. (US 2019/0189722 A1)
Shim et al. (US 2010/0157235 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893