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 .
Election/Restrictions
The 3/5/2026 "Reply" elects without traverse and identifies claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10-20 as being drawn to Species A1. Accordingly, Examiner has withdrawn claims 3-4 and 7-9 from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. See, for example, 37 CFR § 1.142(b).
The 1/5/2026 restriction requirement is proper, is maintained, and is hereby made final.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shi (US Pub. No. 2023/0215350).
Regarding claim 1, in FIGs. 1, 9, 11, and 17, Shi discloses a display panel (000, paragraph [0041]), comprising a plurality of pixel cells, each of the plurality of pixel cells comprises at least two sub-pixels (00A and 00B, paragraph [0044]), each of the at least two sub-pixels comprises a pixel circuit (10, paragraph [0042]) and a light-emitting element (20, paragraph [0042]), the pixel circuit is configured to drive the light-emitting element to emit light, and the pixel circuit comprises a drive transistor (T1/T1A/T1B, paragraphs [0042] and [0109]); the at least two sub-pixels comprise a first sub-pixel (00A, paragraph [0042]) and a second sub-pixel (00B, paragraph [0042]), the first sub-pixel is configured to emit green light (paragraph [0044]), and the second sub-pixel is configured to emit at least one of red light or blue light (paragraph [0044]); the drive transistor of the pixel circuit in the first sub-pixel (T1A) comprises a first channel, and the drive transistor (T1B) of the pixel circuit in the second sub-pixel comprises a second channel; and a width-to-length ratio of the first channel (N1, paragraph [0109]) is greater than a width-to-length ratio of the second channel (N2, paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 2, in FIGs. 1, 9, 11, and 17, Shi discloses that a width of the first channel (WA) is the same as a width of the second channel (WB), and a length of the first channel (LA) is less than a length of the second channel (LB) (paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 20, in FIGs. 1, 9, 11, and 17, Shi discloses a display device comprising a display panel (000, paragraph [0041]), wherein the display panel comprises: a plurality of pixel cells, each of the plurality of pixel cells comprises at least two sub-pixels (00A and 00B, paragraph [0044]), each of the at least two sub-pixels comprises a pixel circuit (10, paragraph [0042]) and a light-emitting element (20, paragraph [0042]), the pixel circuit is configured to drive the light-emitting element to emit light, and the pixel circuit comprises a drive transistor (T1/T1A/T1B, paragraphs [0042] and [0109]); the at least two sub-pixels comprise a first sub-pixel (00A, paragraph [0042]) and a second sub-pixel (00B, paragraph [0042]), the first sub-pixel is configured to emit green light (paragraph [0044]), and the second sub-pixel is configured to emit at least one of red light or blue light (paragraph [0044]); the drive transistor of the pixel circuit in the first sub-pixel comprises a first channel, and the drive transistor of the pixel circuit in the second sub-pixel comprises a second channel; and a width-to-length ratio of the first channel (N1, paragraph [0109]) is greater than a width-to-length ratio of the second channel (N2, paragraph [0109]).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US Pub. No. 2023/0215350) in view of Mou (US Pub. No. 2021/0376026).
Regarding claim 5, Shi appears not to explicitly disclose that a shape of the first channel comprises a U-shape, and a shape of the second channel comprises the U-shape.
The art however well recognized a U-shape to be suitable for use as a channel in a driving transistor. See, for example, Mou, FIGs. 1D-1E, paragraph [0065].
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed a shape of the first channel and a shape of the second channel to comprise a U-shape for its recognized suitability as a channel in a driving transistor.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US Pub. No. 2023/0215350).
Regarding claim 14, in FIGs. 1, 9, 11, and 17, Shi discloses that the at least two sub-pixels further comprise a third sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel is configured to emit blue light, and the third sub-pixel is configured to emit red light (paragraph [0044]); the drive transistor of the pixel circuit in the third sub-pixel comprises a third channel.
Shi appears not to explicitly disclose that a width-to-length ratio of the third channel is less than the width-to-length ratio of the second channel.
The semiconductor art well recognized that width-to-length ratio of a drive transistor controls parameters critical for device performance, including an off-state leakage current and adjustment a color shift at a low grayscale. See Shi paragraph [0055]. Width-to-length ratio of a driving transistor is therefore an art recognized result affecting parameter.
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05), therefore, it would have been obvious to determine (for example by routine experimentation) the optimum width-to-length ratio of the third channel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10-13, and 15-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed display panel particularly characterized by a length of the second segment is the same as a length of the third segment; a length of the fifth segment is the same as a length of the sixth segment; and a length of the first segment is the same as a length of the fourth segment, and the length of the second segment is less than the length of the fifth segment.
Regarding claims 10-11, the prior art generally disclosed (see, for example, US Pub. No. 2023/0290307) that light emitting elements may have a different capacitance according to the color of emitted light (paragraph [0128]).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed display panel particularly characterized by a capacitance of the light-emitting element in the first sub-pixel (required to emit green light, see claim 1) is less than a capacitance of the light-emitting element in the second sub-pixel (required to emit red or blue light, see claim 1).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the prior art generally disclosed (see, for example, US Pub. No. 2021/0376026, FIGs. 1A-1C) a display panel comprising a base substrate (100, paragraph [0054]) and a plurality of signal traces; the light-emitting element comprises an anode layer (113/123), a light-emitting layer (112) and a cathode layer (114) which are sequentially stacked and arranged on a side of the base substrate; the anode layer of the light-emitting element in a first sub-pixel is a first anode layer (113), and the anode layer of the light-emitting element in a second sub-pixel is a second anode layer (123).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed display panel particularly characterized by in a thickness direction of the display panel, an overlapping area of the first anode layer and a signal trace corresponding to the first anode layer among the plurality of signal traces is less than an overlapping area of the second anode layer and a signal trace corresponding to the second anode layer among the plurality of signal traces.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, the prior art generally disclosed (see, for example, US Pub. No. 2021/0376026, FIGs. 1A-1C) a display panel comprising a base substrate (100) and a plurality of signal traces; a light-emitting element comprises an anode layer (113/123), a light-emitting layer (112) and a cathode layer (114) which are sequentially stacked and arranged on a side of the base substrate; the anode layer of the light-emitting element in a first sub-pixel is a first anode layer (113), and the anode layer of the light-emitting element in a second sub-pixel is a second anode layer (123).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed display panel particularly characterized by in a thickness direction of the display panel, a distance between the first anode layer and a signal trace overlapped with the first anode layer among the plurality of signal traces is greater than a distance between the second anode layer and a signal trace overlapped with the second anode layer among the plurality of signal traces.
Regarding claims 15-16, the prior art generally disclosed (see, for example, US Pub. No. 2023/0290307) that light emitting elements may have a different capacitance according to the color of emitted light (paragraph [0128]).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed display panel particularly characterized by a capacitance of the light-emitting element in the first sub-pixel (required to emit green light, see claim 1) is less than a capacitance of the light-emitting element in the second sub-pixel (required to emit red or blue light, see claim 1), and the capacitance of the light-emitting element in the second sub-pixel is less than a capacitance of the light-emitting element in the third sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed display panel particularly characterized by in a thickness direction of the display panel, a distance between the first anode layer and a signal trace overlapped with the first anode layer among the plurality of signal traces is greater than a distance between the second anode layer and a signal trace overlapped with the second anode layer among the plurality of signal traces, and the distance between the second anode layer and the signal trace overlapped with the second anode layer among the plurality of signal traces is greater than a distance between the third anode layer and a signal trace overlapped with the third anode layer among the plurality of signal traces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUCKER J WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3234. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/TUCKER J WRIGHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights