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 .
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 24 is 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 24, recitation of “a pixel electrode” in line 7 renders the claim as indefinite. It is unclear as to whether “a pixel electrode” of line 7 is the same “a pixel electrode” of line 5 or a different pixel electrode. Examiner will interpret “a pixel electrode” of line 7 as the same “a pixel electrode” (i.e., the pixel electrode) for the sake of interpretation.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0045137 A1; hereinafter Bae)
With respect to claim 1, Bae discloses a display device comprising: a substrate [100]; an insulating film [115] on the substrate and having an isolation groove [GR] defining a first isolated area and a second isolated area; a first transistor [TFT] in the first isolated area; and a pixel electrode [211] connected to the first transistor and overlapping the isolation groove (See Figure 7 annotated below; edge of pixel electrode overlaps edge of isolation groove)
PNG
media_image1.png
476
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Bae discloses wherein the pixel electrode is on the isolation groove (see Figure 7).
With respect to claim 6, Bae discloses an emissive layer [221] on the pixel electrode (see Figure 7).
With respect to claim 8, Bae discloses wherein contacts [D/CM/CNT] between the first transistor and the pixel electrode are located in the first isolated area (See Figure 7).
With respect to claim 9, Bae discloses a second transistor connected to the pixel electrode (see Figure 3B and ¶[0086-0087]).
With respect to claim 10, Bae discloses wherein the second transistor is in the second isolated area (see Figure 3B and 7).
With respect to claim 11, Bae discloses wherein contacts between the second transistor and the pixel electrode are located in the second isolated area (see Bae Figure 7).
With respect to claim 12, Bae discloses wherein a gate electrode of the second transistor is connected to a gate line [SL], one of a source electrode and a drain electrode of the second transistor is connected to the pixel electrode (see Figure 7), and the other one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the second transistor is connected to an initialization voltage line (see Figure 3B and ¶[0086]).
With respect to claim 13, Bae discloses wherein the second transistor is configured to provide an initialization voltage from the initialization voltage line to the pixel electrode in response to a gate signal from the gate line (see ¶[0079] and ¶[0083]).
With respect to claim 14, Bae discloses wherein a light-emitting element comprising the pixel electrode is configured to be turned off by the initialization voltage (See ¶[0087]).
With respect to claim 15, Bae discloses wherein a part of the pixel electrode that overlaps the isolation groove has a smaller width than other parts of the pixel electrode (see Figure 7).
With respect to claim 16, Bae discloses an isolation layer in the isolation groove (see ¶[0128]).
With respect to claim 17, Bae discloses wherein the pixel electrode is on the isolation layer (see Figure 7).
With respect to claim 23, Bae discloses a bank [119] on the pixel electrode and having a smaller thickness where the isolation groove and the pixel electrode overlap each other than in the first isolated area (See Figure 7).
With respect to claim 24, Bae discloses a display device comprising: a substrate [100]; an insulating film [115] having an isolation groove [GR] at a boundary between a first isolated area and a second isolated area of the substrate; a pixel electrode [211] overlapping the isolation groove; a first transistor [TFT] in the first isolated area; and a pixel electrode connected to the first transistor and overlapping the isolation groove (See Figure 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0108484 A1; hereinafter Park)
With respect to claim 1, Park discloses a display device comprising: a substrate [110]; an insulating film [190] on the substrate and having an isolation groove [166] defining a first isolated area and a second isolated area; a first transistor [140,120a/b/c]] in the first isolated area; and a pixel electrode [200] connected to the first transistor and overlapping the isolation groove (See Figure 2)
With respect to claim 3, Park discloses wherein one side of the pixel electrode is in the first isolated area, and an opposite side of the pixel electrode is in the second isolated area (see Figure 2).
With respect to claim 4, Park discloses wherein the first transistor is connected to the one side of the pixel electrode (see Figure 2).
With respect to claim 6, Park discloses an emissive layer [210] on the pixel electrode (see Figure 2).
With respect to claim 7, Park discloses wherein the emissive layer is on the pixel electrode in the second isolated area (see Figure 2).
With respect to claim 18, Park discloses a protruding portion between the isolation groove and the pixel electrode (see Figure 2).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bae
With respect to claim 5, Park fails to disclose a second transistor in the second isolated area and connected to the opposite side of the pixel electrode. In the same field of endeavor, Bae teaches a second transistor in the second isolated area (see Figure 3B and 7) and connected to the opposite side of the pixel electrode (See Figure 3B and ¶[0086-0087]).
Implementation of a second transistor connected to the pixel electrode, as taught by Bae allows for multiple transistors to control emission and operations simultaneously (see ¶[0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-22 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.
With respect to claims 19-22, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, a bank on the pixel electrode and having an opening where the isolation groove and the pixel electrode overlap each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7546. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00-5.00PM PST.
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 LOKE can be reached at 571-272-1657. 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.
/JONATHAN HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818