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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 8-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (US 2022/0123094) hereinafter “Qiu” in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 3A and 5 of Qiu teaches a display device (Paragraph 0002) comprising: a substrate (Paragraph 0002) comprising a functional display region (Item 10) and a first display region (Portion of Item 20 above Item 10) adjacent to the functional display region (Item 10) in a first direction (Up and down across the page), where the substrate (Paragraph 0002) further comprises a second display region (Portion of Item 20 to the left of Item 10) adjacent to the functional display region (Item 10) in the second direction (Left to right across the page); a first light-emitting element (Item 11) disposed on the functional display region (Item 10); a first pixel circuit (Item D in a portion of Item 20 above Item 10) disposed on the first display region (Portion of Item 20 above Item 10) and electrically connected to the first light-emitting element (Item 11); a second light-emitting element (Item P; Paragraph 0064) disposed on the first display region (Portion of Item 20 above item 10); a second pixel circuit (Item P; Paragraph 0064) disposed on the first display region (Portion of Item 20 above Item 10) and electrically connected to the second light-emitting element (Item P; Paragraph 0064); and a first scan line (Top Item 171) electrically connected to the first pixel circuit (Item D) and the second pixel circuit (Item P; Paragraph 0064) and extending in the second direction (Left to right across the page) perpendicular to the first direction (Up and down across the page); a third light-emitting element (Another Item 11) disposed on the functional display region (Item 10); and a third pixel circuit (Item D in the portion of Item 20 to the left of Item 10) disposed on the second display region (Portion of Item 20 to the left of Item 10) and electrically connected to the third light-emitting element (Another Item 11); and a second scan line (Bottom Item 171) electrically connected to the third pixel circuit (Another Item D in the portion of Item 20 to the left of Item 10), the second scan line is a zigzag line.
Qiu does not teach where the first scan line is a straight line outside the functional display region, the zigzag second scan line is around the functional display region nor does Qiu explicitly teach a number of pixel circuits electrically connected to the first scan line is greater than a number of pixel circuits electrically connected to the second scan line.
Kim teaches a first scan line (Lower SL in Fig. 3) and a second scan line (Upper SL in Fig. 3) where the first scan line is a straight line outside a more transparent region (Item OA), the second scan line is located around the more transparent region (Paragraph 0111 where the second scan line detours around the more transparent region in an intermediate area where no light emitting units are present) such that a number of pixel circuits electrically connected to the first scan line is greater than a number of pixel circuits electrically connected to the second scan line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first scan line be a straight line outside the functional display region, the zigzag second scan line be around the functional display region and have a number of pixel circuits electrically connected to the first scan line is greater than a number of pixel circuits electrically connected to the second scan line because this allows the more transparent area to allow as much light through as possible without the interference of circuit elements (Kim Paragraph 0111) while the first can line is in a main display region where the transparency does not need to be as high.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 5 of Qiu further teaches where the first pixel circuit (Item D) and the second pixel circuit (Item P; Paragraph 0064) are arranged in the second direction (Left to right across the page).
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 5 of Qiu further teaches where the first pixel circuit (Item D in the portion of Item 20 above Item 10) is electrically connected to the first light-emitting element (Item 11) through a first line (Item 152), the third pixel circuit (Another Item D in the portion of Item 20 to the left of Item 10) is electrically connected to the third light-emitting element (Another Item 11) through a second line (Item 151), the first line (Item 152) extends in the first direction (Up and down across the page), and the second line (Item 151) extends in the second direction (Left to right across the page).
Regarding claim 9, Qiu further teaches where at least one of the first line (Item 152) and the second line (Item 151) comprises a transparent conductive material (Paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 10, Qiu further teaches where the first line (Item 152) comprises a first segment disposed on the functional display region and a second segment disposed on the first display region, and the first segment is greater in transparency than the second segment (Paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 11, Fig. 2 of Qiu teaches a fourth light emitting element (Another Item 11) disposed on the functional display region (Item 10), the fourth light emitting element (Another Item 11) and the first light emitting element (Item 11) being arranged in the first direction (staggered up and down across the page); a fourth pixel circuit (Another Item D) on the first display region (Portion of Item 20 above Item 10) and electrically connected to the fourth light emitting element (Another Item 11); and a first data line (Item D1) electrically connected to the first pixel circuit and the fourth pixel circuit.
Regarding claim 14, Figs. 3A and 5 of Qiu further teach an electronic device comprising: the display device according to claim 1 (For brevity the entirety of the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here; See rejection of claim 1 above); and a sensing device (Paragraph 0062) overlapping the functional display region (Item 10) in a top view of the display device.
Regarding claim 15, Qiu further teach where the sensing device (Paragraph 0062) is a camera module (Paragraph 0072).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (US 2022/0123094) hereinafter “Qiu” in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678) hereinafter “Kim” and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0365046) hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Qiu and Kim teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first scan line is greater in width than the second scan line.
Chen teaches where the width of a scan line is a result effective variable (Chen Paragraph 0042 where a width of a scan line can be modified to adjust resistance of the scan line such that a desired RC delay results). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the width of the first and second scan lines such that the first scan line has a greater width than the second scan line because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (US 2022/0123094) hereinafter “Qiu” in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678) hereinafter “Kim” and in further view of Son et al. (US 2017/0004758) hereinafter “Son”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Qiu and Kim teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first scan line is greater in thickness than the second scan line.
Son teaches where the thickness of a scan line is a result effective variable (Son Paragraph 0113 where a thickness of a scan line can be modified to be different according to the distance from a scan driver such that an RC delay is reduced). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the first and second scan lines such that the first scan line has a greater thickness than the second scan line because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (US 2022/0123094) hereinafter “Qiu” in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678) hereinafter “Kim” and in further view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0294450) hereinafter “Kim2”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Qiu and Kim teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first scan line is less in length than the second scan line.
Kim2 teaches where the length of a scan line is a result effective variable (Kim Paragraph 0150 where a length of a scan line is directly related to the load value of the scan line). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the length of the first and second scan lines such that the first scan line has a length less than the second scan line because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (US 2022/0123094) hereinafter “Qiu” in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678) hereinafter “Kim” and in further view of Yang et al. (US 2022/0069047) hereinafter “Yang”.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Qiu and Kim teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first data line crosses the functional display region.
Fig. 8 of Yang further teaches where the first data line (Item 110) crosses the functional display region (Item DA1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first data line cross the functional display region because this this allows the data line to traverse the display while transmitting data signals to desired locations in the display (Yang Paragraph 0064).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (US 2022/0123094) hereinafter “Qiu” in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0102678) hereinafter “Kim” and in further view of Wu et al. (US 2018/0040638) hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Qiu and Kim teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except a data driver electrically connected to the first pixel circuit, wherein the first pixel circuit is disposed between the data driver and the functional display region.
Fig. 2 of Wu teaches where a data driver (Item 240) is present in a non-display outer region of a display device, where the data driver is electrically connected to pixel circuits in the display region (Paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a data driver electrically connected to the first pixel circuit, wherein the first pixel circuit is disposed between the data driver and the functional display region because the data driver transmits data signals to the pixel elements via data lines (Qiu Paragraph 0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights