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
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Species 4 and Sub-species B and C covered by Fig. 13), in the reply filed on May 11, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-13, 15, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Invention I and Invention II are closely interrelated technically and are not independent or patentably distinct from one another” and “although the two inventions are assigned different CPC classification numbers, patent classification systems are inherently limited. Such classification cannot accurately reflect the intrinsic technical connection between the device and method inventions herein, and thus should not serve as a proper basis for mandating claim group restriction”. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that the identified species “share a common generic inventive concept and should properly be classified as a single unitary species. Additionally, Applicant submits that the Examiner's asserted correspondence between the claims and the accompanying drawings is unreasonable and improper. For example, Claim 10 is not limited exclusively to the embodiment of FIG. 15, and equally encompasses the embodiments illustrated in FIG. 11 and FIG. 13”. These arguments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
First, with respect to the restriction between Invention I and II, while, as argued by the Applicant, the two invention might be connected, as discussed in the restriction requirement dated April 16, 2026, the two invention are distinct because not only of their different classification, but would also require a different field of search, including employing different resource or different search queries and thus would result in a serious burden if the restriction would not be required. In the event the claims of Invention I are allowed, all of the claims of Invention II would be rejoined if they include all of the limitations of the allowable claim.
Second, with respect to the various identified species, as discussed in the restriction requirement, the identified species recite mutually exclusive characteristic, which would require a different field of search to determine patentability of each of the identified species. While some of the species might share some of the same characteristics, they nonetheless are found to have mutually exclusive characteristics, that would place a serious search and examination burden. Again, in the event a generic claim to all of the identified species is determined patentable, the remaining species would be rejoined with the allowable generic claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0054] of the specification, drive circuit is referred to as element 11 instead of 52.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 18, “located a side”, recited in line 2 of the claim should read “located at a side”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 2, as currently presented the claim requires that the display panel further comprises “a first conductive portion and a second conductive portion” in addition to “the first blocking portion … and the second blocking portion”. Difference between the first and second conductive portions and first and second blocking portions recited in the claim, however, is unclear. Specifically, review of the specification, and specifically Figs. 2-4, suggests that blocking portion 11 and conductive portion 31 are referring to the same element of the device. Similarly, blocking portion 12 and conductive portion 32 are referring to the same element of the device. Accordingly, the difference between blocking portions and conductive portions, that appear to be referring to the same elements of the device, is unclear. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that the first conductive portion and the first blocking portion are referring to the same element of the device and that the second conductive portion and the second blocking portion are also referring to the same element of the device. Claims 3-11 and 14, which either directly or indirectly depend from claim 2 and which inherit issues of claim 2 are rejected for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 4, as currently presented the claim requires that the first insulation layer comprises a first insulation sub-layer and a second insulation sub-layer … and/or”. It is unclear from the claim language, however, if the claim requires both elements to be present or only the first element to be present. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that only presence of the first element is required by the claim.
With respect to claim 5, as currently presented the claim recites “a pixel drive circuit” twice (in lines 6 and 9) of the claim. It is unclear whether the second recited “a pixel drive circuit” was intended to relate back to “a pixel drive circuit” (line 6) or to set forth an additional pixel drive circuit. Claims 6-10 which directly or indirectly depend from claim 5 and which inherit issues of claim 5 are rejected for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 7, as currently presented the claim recites “a pixel drive circuit” three times (in line 6 and 9 of claim 5 and line 4 of claim 7). It is unclear whether the third recited “a pixel drive circuit” was intended to relate back to “a pixel drive circuit” (lines 6 and 9 of claim 5) or to set forth an additional pixel drive circuit. Claims 8-10 which either directly or indirectly depend from claim 7 and which inherit issues of claim 7 are rejected for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 14, as currently presented the claim recites, “a first signal line comprising a light transmission portion, and at least one of the first conductive portion or the second conductive portion comprises the light transmission portion.” It is unclear from the claim language if the recited “first signal line comprising a light transmission portion” is a part of the first or the second conductive portions, or separate therefrom, and what is the difference between the first signal line and the first and second conductive portions and/or the first and second blocking layers. Review of the specification, and, in particular Fig. 2, suggest that the claimed blocking layers (11, 12, Fig. 2), the first and second conductive portions (31, 32, Fig. 2), and a first signal line (53, Fig. 2) are referring to the same element of the device. Accordingly, the difference between the various recited elements is unclear. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that the first signal line and the first or second conductive portions that include light transmission portion are referring to the same elements.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0189559, hereinafter “Lee `559”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee `559 teaches in Figs. 1-2 (annotated Fig. 2 shown below) and related text a display panel (annotated Fig. 2), comprising:
a substrate (e.g. layers above BUF layer, annotated Fig. 2) and a first display region (DA, Fig. 1), wherein the first display region comprises:
a light transmission region (LT, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0089]);
a first blocking portion (BM3, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0060]) located at a side of the substrate (annotated Fig. 2);
a second blocking portion (BM2, Fig. 2 and ¶[0060]) located at a side of the first blocking portion away from the substrate; and
a first conductive layer (BM1, Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0065]-[0066]) located at a side of the second blocking portion away from the first blocking portion, wherein the first conductive layer comprises a first hollowed portion (annotated Fig. 2) and a first non-hollowed portion (annotated Fig. 2), and the first hollowed portion is located in the light transmission region (annotated Fig. 2), wherein, along a first direction (e.g. direction perpendicular to the substrate, annotated Fig. 2), the first blocking portion at least partially overlaps with the second blocking portion (annotated Fig. 2), and an overlapping between the first blocking portion and the second blocking portion at least partially overlaps with the first non-hollowed portion (annotated Fig. 2), and the first direction is perpendicular to a plane of the substrate (annotated Fig. 2).
[AltContent: textbox (2nd interface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st interface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (non-hollowed portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ((Annotated Figure))]
PNG
media_image1.png
460
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (hollowed portion)]
Regarding claim 2 (1), Lee `559 teaches wherein the first display region further comprises a first conductive portion (e.g. portion of BM3, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0060]-[0064]) and a second conductive portion (e.g. portion of BM2, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0060]-[0067]), wherein the display panel further comprises a first insulation layer (e.g. BUF, SUB2, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0068]-[0070]) at a side of the first conductive portion (e.g. portion of BM3, annotated Fig. 2) and a second insulation layer (e.g. portion of SUB2 and SUB1, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0063]) at a side of the second conductive portion (annotated Fig. 2), the first blocking portion (BM3, annotated Fig. 2) comprises a first interface (annotated Fig. 2) between the first insulation layer (SUB2, annotated Fig. 2) and the first conductive portion (e.g. portion of BM3, annotated Fig. 2), and the second blocking portion comprises a second interface (annotated Fig. 2) between the second insulation layer (SUB1, annotated Fig. 2) and the second conductive portion (e.g. portion of BM2, annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3 (2), Lee `559 teaches wherein the first conductive portion (i.e. portion of BM3, annotated Fig. 2) at least partially overlaps with the second conductive portion (i.e. portion of BM2, annotated Fig. 2) along the first direction (annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4 (2), Lee `559 teaches wherein the first insulation layer (e.g. BUF, SUB2, annotated Fig. 2) comprises a first insulation sub-layer (e.g. BUF, annotated Fig. 2) and a second insulation sub-layer (SUB2, annoted Fig. 2), and along the first direction (annotated Fig. 2), the first insulation sub-layer and the second insulation sub- layer are located on two sides of the first conductive portion (e.g. portion of BM3, annotated Fig. 2) respectively (annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Lee `559 teaches in Figs. 1-2 (annotated Fig. 2 shown above) and related text, a display apparatus (DD, Fig. 1 and ¶[0095]) comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises,
a substrate (e.g. layers above BUF layer, annotated Fig. 2) and a first display region (DA, Fig. 1),
wherein the first display region (DA, Fig. 1) comprises:
a light transmission region (LT, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0089]);
a first blocking portion (BM3, annotated Fig. 2 and ¶[0060]) located at a side of the substrate (annotated Fig. 2);
a second blocking portion (BM2, Fig. 2 and ¶[0060]) located at a side of the first blocking portion away from the substrate; and
a first conductive layer (BM1, Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0065]-[0066]) located at a side of the second blocking portion away from the first blocking portion, wherein the first conductive layer comprises a first hollowed portion (annotated Fig. 2) and a first non-hollowed portion (annotated Fig. 2), and the first hollowed portion is located in the light transmission region (annotated Fig. 2), wherein, along a first direction (e.g. direction perpendicular to the substrate, annotated Fig. 2), the first blocking portion at least partially overlaps with the second blocking portion (annotated Fig. 2), and an overlapping between the first blocking portion and the second blocking portion at least partially overlaps with the first non-hollowed portion (annotated Fig. 2), and the first direction is perpendicular to a plane of the substrate (annotated Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1-4, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0066997, hereinafter “Lee `997”) with Lu et al. (US 2021/0397806, hereinafter “Lu”) relied for as an evidentiary reference for showing that the light-blocking black matrix disclosed by Lee `997 is considered a conductive material.
Regarding claim 1, Lee `997 teaches in Figs. 1 and 15-17 (annotated Fig. 15 and Fig. 17 shown below) and related text a display panel (Fig. 17), comprising:
a substrate (SUB, Fig. 17 and ¶[0062]) and a first display region (DD_DA(SA), Fig. 1 and ¶[0051]), wherein the first display region comprises:
a light transmission region (LBP3, Fig. 17 and ¶[0105]);
a first blocking portion (BM3, Fig. 17 and ¶[0227]) located at a side of the substrate (Fig. 17);
a second blocking portion (LBP2, Fig. 17 and ¶[0202]) located at a side of the first blocking portion away from the substrate; and
a first conductive layer (LBP1, Fig. 17 and ¶[0197], where is noted that the light-blocking black matrix disclosed by Lee `997 is considered a conductive material as evidenced by Lu (¶¶[0040]-[0042] and [0074])) located at a side of the second blocking portion away from the first blocking portion, wherein the first conductive layer comprises a first hollowed portion (OPN1, Fig. 17 and ¶[0199]) and a first non-hollowed portion (Fig. 17), and the first hollowed portion is located in the light transmission region (Fig. 17), wherein, along a first direction (DR3, Fig. 17), the first blocking portion (LBP3, Fig. 17) at least partially overlaps with the second blocking portion (LBP2, Fig. 17), and an overlapping between the first blocking portion and the second blocking portion at least partially overlaps with the first non-hollowed portion (LBP1, Fig. 17), and the first direction is perpendicular to a plane of the substrate (Fig. 17).
[AltContent: textbox (DIR1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (DIR2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ((Annotated Figure))]
PNG
media_image2.png
760
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
557
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (1), Lee `997 teaches wherein the first display region further comprises a first conductive portion (e.g. portion of LBP3, annotated Fig. 15, Fig. 17 and ¶¶[0234]-[0235]) and a second conductive portion (e.g. portion of LBP2, annotated Fig. 15, Fig. 17 and ¶¶[0202]-[0203]), wherein the display panel further comprises a first insulation layer (INS1, BSL, Fig. 17 and ¶¶[0119]-[0126]) at a side of the first conductive portion (Fig. 17) and a second insulation layer (INS2, Fig. 17 and ¶[0119]) at a side of the second conductive portion (Fig. 17), the first blocking portion (LBP3, Fig. 17) comprises a first interface (Fig. 17) between the first insulation layer (INS1, Fig. 17) and the first conductive portion (LBP3, Fig. 17), and the second blocking portion (LBP2, Fig. 17) comprises a second interface (Fig. 17) between the second insulation layer (INS2, Fig. 17) and the second conductive portion (LBP2, Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 3 (2), Lee `997 teaches wherein the first conductive portion (e.g. portion of LBP3, annotated Fig. 15 and Fig. 17) at least partially overlaps with the second conductive portion (e.g. portion of LBP2, annotated Fig. 15 and Fig. 17) along the first direction (DR3, Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 4 (2), Lee `997 teaches wherein the first insulation layer (INS1, BSL, Fig. 17) comprises a first insulation sub-layer (e.g. BSL, Fig. 17) and a second insulation sub-layer (INS1, Fig. 17), and along the first direction (DR3, Fig. 17), the first insulation sub-layer and the second insulation sub-layer are located on two sides of the first conductive portion (e.g. portion of LBP3, Fig. 17) respectively.
Regarding claim 11 (2), Lee `997 teaches wherein an angle α formed between the first conductive portion (e.g. portion of LBP3 extending along DIR1, annotated Fig. 15) and the second conductive portion (e.g. portion of LBP2 extending along DIR2, annotated Fig. 15) satisfies 60º≤α≤90º (i.e. the angle between the portion of LBP3 extending along DIR1 and the portion of portion of LBP2 extending along DIR2 as shown in the annotated Fig. 15 is 90º).
Regarding claim 20, Lee `997 teaches in Figs. 1 and 15-17 (annotated Fig. 15 and Fig. 17 shown above) and related text, a display apparatus (DD, Fig. 1 and ¶[0047]) comprising a display panel (Fig. 17), wherein the display panel comprises,
a substrate (SUB, Fig. 17 and ¶[0062]) and a first display region (DD_DA(SA), Fig. 1 and ¶[0051]),
wherein the first display region comprises:
a light transmission region (LBP3, Fig. 17 and ¶[0105]);
a first blocking portion (BM3, Fig. 17 and ¶[0227]) located at a side of the substrate (Fig. 17);
a second blocking portion (LBP2, Fig. 17 and ¶[0202]) located at a side of the first blocking portion away from the substrate; and
a first conductive layer (LBP1, Fig. 17 and ¶[0197], where is noted that the light-blocking black matrix disclosed by Lee `997 is considered a conductive material as evidenced by Lu (¶¶[0040]-[0042] and [0074])) located at a side of the second blocking portion away from the first blocking portion, wherein the first conductive layer comprises a first hollowed portion (OPN1, Fig. 17 and ¶[0199]) and a first non-hollowed portion (Fig. 17), and the first hollowed portion is located in the light transmission region (Fig. 17),
wherein, along a first direction (DR3, Fig. 17), the first blocking portion (LBP3, Fig. 17) at least partially overlaps with the second blocking portion (LBP2, Fig. 17), and an overlapping between the first blocking portion and the second blocking portion at least partially overlaps with the first non-hollowed portion (LBP1, Fig. 17), and the first direction is perpendicular to a plane of the substrate (Fig. 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 16-18 is/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, and overcome objection(s) noted above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a display panel, particularly characterized by a light-emitting element that comprises a second electrode stacked a first electrode and a light-emitting layer, wherein the first non-hollowed potion of a first conductive layer comprises the second electrode, in combination with all other elements of the display panel recited in the claim(s). Claim 17 which directly depends from claim 16 and which includes all of the limitations of claim 16 is allowable for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a display panel, particularly characterized by a shielding layer located at a side of the first blocking portion close to a substrate and comprises a second hollowed portion located in a light transmission region, where the second hollowed portion at least partially overlaps with a first hollowed portion of a first conductive layer, in combination with all other elements of (e.g. the display unit) recited in the claim(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 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 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights