DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant Election filed on 01/21/2026.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 15 and 18 are withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (Fig. 11) and Species B (Figs. 16 & 17) in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-selected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are examined in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/29/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality:
In claim 19, “each of pixels comprises” should read “each of a plurality of pixels comprises”.
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 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 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 1-6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WU et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0045968) in view of PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0235183).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wu teaches a display device (Fig. 6A) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 6A, 74, ¶ [0085]);
a transistor (Fig. 6A, 412T, ¶ [0090]) above the substrate;
a pixel electrode (Fig. 6A, 4111, ¶ [0084]) connected to the transistor;
an extension electrode (Fig. 6A, 110, ¶ [0084]) connected between the transistor and the pixel electrode;
a light-emitting layer (Fig. 6A, 4112, ¶ [0084]) above the pixel electrode; and
a common electrode (Fig. 6A, 4113, ¶ [0084]) above the light-emitting layer.
However, Wu does not explicitly teach an additional capacitor electrode at a same layer as the extension electrode, overlapping the pixel electrode, and to which a constant voltage is applied.
However, Park is a pertinent art that teaches an additional capacitor electrode (Fig. 3, 190p, ¶ [0060]) at a same layer as the extension electrode (Park’s additional capacitor electrode is on a layer directly above Park’s transistor T1 (¶ [0054]), which corresponds to the location of Wu’s connection line 110. Further, it would be obvious to have Wu modified by Park’s connection line and additional capacitor electrode be on a same a layer in order to simplify manufacturing), overlapping the pixel electrode (Fig. 3, 191a, ¶ [0060]), and to which a constant voltage is applied (It would be obvious that Park’s additional capacitor electrode would be capable of conducting applied voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu’s device to further comprise additional capacitors and capacitor electrodes according to the teaching of Park (Fig. 3) in order to ensure sufficient storage capacity during device operation (Park ¶ [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, and Wu modified by Park teaches that the extension electrode (Wu Fig. 6A, 110, ¶ [0135] teaches that 110 can be a transparent conductive material such as ITO (Indium tin oxide)) and the additional capacitor electrode (Park Fig. 3, 190p, ¶¶ [0100] & [0102] teaches that 190p can be a conductive metal oxide such as ITO) comprise a transparent conductive oxide.
Regarding claim 3, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, and Park teaches that the additional capacitor electrode (Fig. 3, 190p, ¶ [0060]) is connected to a driving voltage line to which a driving voltage is applied (It would be obvious that Park’s driving gate electrode would be capable of conducting a driving voltage during operation).
Regarding claim 4, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 3, and Wu teaches that the transistor (Fig. 6A, 412T, ¶ [0090]) comprises:
a semiconductor (Fig. 6A, 4121, ¶ [0098]) that comprises a first area (Fig. 6A, portion of 4121 to the left of the central portion of 4121 that overlaps 4122), a channel (Fig. 6A, portion of 4121 overlapping 4122), and a second area (Fig. 6A, portion of 4121 to the right of the central portion of 4121 that overlaps 4122);
a second gate electrode (Fig. 6A, 4122, ¶ [0091]) overlapping the channel;
a source electrode (Fig. 6A, 4123, ¶ [0090]) connected to the first area; and
a drain electrode (Fig. 6A, 4124, ¶ [0090]) connected to the second area, and connected to the pixel electrode (Fig. 6A, 4111, ¶ [0084]).
However, Wu does not explicitly teach a first gate electrode above the substrate
However. Park teaches a first gate electrode (Fig. 3, 111a, ¶ [0050]) above the substrate (Fig. 3, 110, ¶ [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wu’s transistor to include a second gate electrode below the channel according to the teaching of Park (Fig. 3) in order to transistor characteristics (Park ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 4, and Park teaches that the drain electrode is connected to the second gate electrode (Fig. 3, 111a, ¶ [0050] teaches that 111a is electrically connected to the drain electrode of T1. Also, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 4, and Park teaches that the driving voltage line (Fig. 3, 155, ¶ [0057]) is at a same layer as the source electrode and the drain electrode (Fig. 3, 155 is on a same layer as 172a and 175a, ¶¶ [0083] & [0086]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 4, and Wu teaches that the semiconductor (Fig. 6A, 4121, ¶ [0098]) comprises an oxide semiconductor material (¶ [0098]).
Regarding claim 10, Wu modified by Park teaches that the display device of claim 1, and Wu teaches that the substrate (Fig. 6A, 74, ¶ [0085]) comprises a display area (Fig. 1, 10, ¶ [0062]), and a peripheral area (¶ [0062]) adjacent to the display area, and wherein the display area comprises a first display area (Fig. 1, 12, ¶ [0062]), a second display area (Fig. 1, 13, ¶ [0062]) outside the first display area, and a third display area (Fig. 1, 11, ¶ [0062]) inside the first display area.
Regarding claim 14, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, and Park teaches that the pixel electrode comprises: a pixel electrode of a red pixel (Fig. 2, 191a, ¶ [0109]); a pixel electrode of a green pixel (Fig. 2, 191b, ¶ [0109]); and a pixel electrode of a blue pixel (Fig. 2, 191c, ¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 16, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 14, and Park teaches that the additional capacitor electrode (Fig. 2, 190p, ¶ [0060]) does not overlap (Fig. 2) at least some of the pixel electrode of the red pixel (Fig. 2, 191a, ¶ [0109]), the pixel electrode of the green pixel (Fig. 2, 191b, ¶ [0109]), or the pixel electrode of the blue pixel (Fig. 2, 191c, ¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 17, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 16, and Park teaches that an overlapping ratio of the additional capacitor electrode (Fig. 2, 190p, ¶ [0060]) and the pixel electrode of the red pixel (Fig. 2, 191a, ¶ [0109]), an overlapping ratio of the additional capacitor electrode and the pixel electrode of the green pixel (Fig. 2, 191b, ¶ [0109]), and an overlapping ratio of the additional capacitor electrode and the pixel electrode of the blue pixel (Fig. 2, 191c, ¶ [0109]) are different (Fig. 2, overlapping ratio of 190p and the anodes of PX1, PX2, and PX3 appear to be different due to a difference in the size of 191a, 191b, and 191c, ¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 19, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, and Wu teaches that each of a plurality of pixels comprises the extension electrode (Figs. 6A & 7A, 110/120, ¶ [0076]), and wherein an extension electrode of a first pixel and an extension electrode of a second pixel are at different respective layers (Figs. 6A & 7A, ¶ [0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 19, and Park teaches that each of the pixels comprises the additional capacitor electrode (Wu modified by Park would fulfill this limitation), and wherein an additional capacitor electrode of the first pixel and an additional capacitor electrode of the second pixel are at different respective layers (It would be obvious to adjust the location of Wu modified by Park’s additional capacitor electrode depending on the layer of Wu’s extension electrodes in order to simplify manufacturing).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WU et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0045968) in view of PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0235183) and further in view of CHANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0329047).
Regarding claim 7, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 4, and Park teaches a first storage electrode (Fig. 3, CST, ¶ [0054]) at a same layer as the semiconductor (Fig. 3, at least a portion of CST is in a same layer as Park’s semiconductor layer, ¶ [0055]).
However, Park does not explicitly teach a second storage electrode at a same layer as the first gate electrode, and overlapping the first storage electrode.
However, Chang is a pertinent art that teaches a second storage electrode (Fig. 3, C12, ¶ [0093]) at a same layer as the first gate electrode (Fig. 3, SL, ¶ [0098]), and overlapping the first storage electrode (Fig. 3, C11, ¶ [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu modified by Park’s device to further include another capacitor electrode below Park’s storage capacitor electrodes according to the teaching of Chang (Fig. 3) in order to increase storage capacity.
Regarding claim 8, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 7, and Park teaches that the first storage electrode (Fig. 3, CST, ¶ [0054]) overlaps the driving voltage line (Fig. 3, 155, ¶ [0057]) .
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WU et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0045968) in view of PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0235183) and further in view of YU et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0165110).
Regarding claim 11, Wu modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 10, and Wu teaches that in the first display area (Figs. 1 & 6, 12, ¶ [0062]), the transistor (Fig. 6A, 412T, ¶ [0090]) is connected to the pixel electrode (Fig. 6A, 4111, ¶ [0084]) through the extension electrode (Fig. 6A, 110, ¶ [0084]), and
wherein, in the third display area (Fig. 1, 11, ¶ [0062]), respective transistors are connected to respective pixel electrodes through respective extension electrodes (Fig. 6A, In display region 11, anodes 4111 are connected to a respective connection line 110 which is connected to a respective transistor).
However, Wu does not explicitly teach that in the second display area, respective transistors are connected to respective pixel electrodes through respective extension electrodes.
However, Yu is a pertinent art that teaches that in the second display area (Fig. 1, 102, ¶ [0070]), respective transistors (Fig. 3, TFT, ¶ [0073]) are connected to respective pixel electrodes (Fig. 3, 25, ¶ [0078]) through respective extension electrodes (Fig. 3, 24, ¶ [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu modified by Park’s device to have anodes be connected to transistors through connection electrodes in the main device area according to the teaching of Yu (Fig. 3) in order to simplify manufacturing (Wu modified by Park modified by Yu would require less manufacturing templates to produce pixels in Wu’s multiple display areas).
Regarding claim 12, Wu modified by Park modified by Yu teaches the display device of claim 11, and Yu teaches a driving circuit part (Fig. 3, 3012, ¶ [0144]) in the second display area (Fig. 1, 102, ¶ [0070]), wherein at least some of the pixel electrodes in the second display area overlap the driving circuit part (Fig. 3, at least a portion of anode 25 overlaps with a portion of pixel circuits 3012).
Regarding claim 13, Wu modified by Park modified by Yu teaches the display device of claim 12, and Wu teaches an electronic module (Fig. 15, 220, ¶ [0160]) in the third display area (Fig. 15, 11, ¶ [0160]), wherein at least some of the pixel electrodes in the third display area overlap the electronic module (¶¶ [0161]-[0162]).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2016/0372497 by Lee et al discloses a display device.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2017/0338252 by Lee et al discloses a display device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813