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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application and are examined on merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the first shielding layer at least partially overlaps an upper end surface of the anode”, as Claim 3 recites, must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0053 of the published application US 2024/0224631 recites that Fig. 4 illustrates one pixel, but other paragraphs recite that Fig. 4 illustrates one sub-pixel.
Paragraph 0118 of the published application, directed to Fig. 4, recites in one sentence that a second shielding layer 142 is disposed on anode 121, and recites in another sentence that the first shielding layer 141 is disposed on the anode, which contradicts with Fig. 4, showing that only second shielding layer 142 is disposed on the anode 121.
Appropriate corrections are required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 3 has a recitation not supported by the specification, e.g., the recitation: “the first shielding layer at least partially overlaps an upper end surface of the anode”.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites: “the first shielding layer at least partially overlaps an upper end surface of the anode, and is spaced apart from a lower end surface of the anode”. The recitation is unclear since contradicts with such part of the specification as its drawings, explicitly showing (Fig. 4) that the first shielding layer has an upper surface under the edge of the upper surface of the anode.
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022] inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted as: “the first shielding layer at least partially overlaps with an upper end surface of the anode, and is spaced apart from a lower end surface of the anode”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (CN 114005857) in view of Miura (US 2014/0231789). Please, note that in order to avoid errors of the machine translation of CN 114005857, the current Office Action makes corresponding references based on the USA analog of CN 114005857 – a published application US 2025/0248214.
In re Claim 1, Luo teaches a display device (paragraph 0001) comprising (Fig. 1):
a substrate 01 (paragraph 0067);
a first thin film transistor – with gate 051 (paragraphs 0069, 0002) – on the substrate 01 and
a second thin film transistor – with gate 11 (paragraphs 0072, 0002) – that is spaced apart from the first thin film transistor;
a planarization layer 15 (paragraph 0073) covering the first thin film transistor and the second thin film transistor;
a first shielding layer 162 (paragraph 0074) on the planarization layer 15;
a light emitting element – with elements 161/18/19 (paragraphs 0077-0078) including an anode – as a lower part of ITO of 161 (paragraph 0076) on the planarization layer 15 and spaced apart from the first shielding layer 162,
a second shielding layer – as Ag layer of 161 (paragraph 0076).
Luo does not teach (at least, explicitly) that the display substrate comprises an active area including a plurality of pixels and a non-active area that surrounds the active area.
Miura teaches (Fig. 1) a display substrate 10 (paragraph 0030) including an active area 10A (paragraph 0032) comprising a plurality of pixels 11 (paragraph 0032) and a non-active area (surrounding a dotted line of 10) that surrounds the active area 10A.
Luo and Miura teach analogous arts directed to displays comprised transistors and light emitting elements, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in understanding and modifying the Luo device in view of the Miura device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Miura created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application that the Luo substrate, although not fully disclosed, includes a substrate comprising an active area with a plurality of pixels and also comprising a non-active area surrounding the active area – since these are the common features of active-matrix display devices to which the Luo and Miura displays belong.
In re Claim 2, Luo/Miura teaches the display device of Claim 1 as cited above.
Luo does not teach that the anode has a reverse tapered shape.
Miura teaches (Fig. 3) an anode 31 having a reverse tapered shape (paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Luo/Miura device of Claim 1 by creating the anode of Luo/Miura in a reverse tapered shape (per Miura), if such shape is preferred for the manufacturer. At the same time, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Claim 4, Luo/Miura teaches the display device of Claim 2 as cited above.
Luo further teaches (Fig. 1) that the first shielding layer 162 and the second shielding layer – a second layer of a stack 161 – comprise a same material – such as silver, Ag (paragraph 0076)
In re Claim 5, Luo/Miura teaches the display device of Claim 4 as cited above, wherein, as shown for Claim 4, the first shielding layer and the second shielding layer respectively include any one of silver, gold, copper, molybdenum, nickel, palladium, tellurium, tungsten, and tantalum, or an alloy thereof – they include silver.
In re Claim 6, Luo/Miura teaches the display device of Claim 1 as cited above, including the anode comprised a stack of three materials, the second functioning as a light shielding material.
Luo further teaches (Fig. 1): a bank 171 (paragraph 0076) on the planarization layer 15, the bank 171 covering an end portion of the anode 161 (161 being a stack of at least the anode and the second shield layer, as shown for Claim 1), wherein the bank 171 covers a portion of the first shielding layer 162 and a portion of the second shielding layer – disposed within the stack of 161.
In re Claim 8, Luo/Miura teaches the display device of Claim 1 as cited above.
Luo further teaches that
the first thin film transistor (paragraph 0002) includes (Fig. 1, obviously, as it is appropriate for a TFT) a first active layer – under a gate dielectric 04 (paragraph 0036), a first gate electrode 0051 (paragraph 0037), a first source electrode – left electrode 141 (paragraph 0049), and a first drain electrode – right electrode 141 (paragraph 0049), and
the second thin film transistor includes a second active layer 09 (paragraph 0043), a second gate electrode 11 (paragraph 0045), a second source electrode – left 142 (paragraph 0050), and a second drain electrode – right 142.
In re Claim 9, Luo/Miura teaches the display device of Claim 8 as cited above and further comprising (Luo, Fig. 1):
at least one insulating layer 08 (paragraph 0042) on the first gate electrode 051 of the first thin film transistor, wherein
the second thin film transistor is on the at least one insulating layer 08.
In re Claim 10, Luo teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate 01 (paragraph 0067);
a transistor – with gate 051 (paragraphs 0069, 0002) – on the substrate 01
a planarization layer 15 (paragraph 0073) covering the first thin film transistor;
a first shielding layer 162 (paragraph 0074) on the planarization layer 15;
a light emitting element – with elements 161/18/19 (paragraphs 0077-0078) including an anode – as a lower part of ITO of 161 (paragraph 0076) on the planarization layer 15 and spaced apart from the first shielding layer 162,
a second shielding layer – as Ag layer of 161 (paragraph 0076) on an upper surface of the anode, wherein
a width of the upper surface of the anode is smaller than a width of a lower surface of the anode.
Luo does not teach (at least, explicitly) that the display substrate comprises an active area including a plurality of pixels and a non-active area that surrounds the active area. Luo further does not teach that the width of the upper surface of the anode is greater than a width of the lower surface of the anode.
Miura teaches (Fig. 1) a display substrate 10 (paragraph 0030) including an active area 10A (paragraph 0032) comprising a plurality of pixels 11 (paragraph 0032) and a non-active area (surrounding a dotted line of 10) that surrounds the active area 10A. Miura further teaches an anode 31 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0041) having a width of an upper surface being greater than a width of a lower surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application that the Luo substrate, although not fully disclosed, includes a substrate comprising an active area with a plurality of pixels and also comprising a non-active area surrounding the active area – since these are the common features of active-matrix display devices to which the Luo and Miura displays belong.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Luo device by creating the anode in the shape taught by Miura, if such shape is preferred for the manufacturer. At the same time, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Claim 12, Luo/Miura teaches the display device of Claim 10.
Luo further teaches (Fig.1, paragraph 0076) that the first shielding layer 162 and the second shielding layer (as a second layer of a stack of 161) respectively include any one of silver, gold, copper, molybdenum, nickel, palladium, tellurium, tungsten, and tantalum, or an alloy thereof – Luo teaches silver.
In re Claim 13, Luo/Miura teaches the display device of Claim 10 as cited above.
Luo further teaches that the display device comprises (Fig. 1): a bank 171 (paragraph 0076) on the planarization layer 15, the bank 171 covering an end portion of the anode 161 (161 being a stack of at least the anode and the second shield layer, as shown for Claim 1), wherein the bank 171 covers a portion of the first shielding layer 162 and a portion of the second shielding layer – disposed within the stack of 161.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo/Miura in view of Ozawa (US 2001/0015626) and Tsay et al. (Us 2020/0190575).
In re Claims 7 and 14, Luo/Miura teaches the display devices of Claims 6 and 10 as cited above.
Luo further teaches (Fig. 1) that the bank 171 is created from a polyimide.
Luo/Miura does not teach, at least, explicitly, that the bank comprises a black material.
Ozawa teaches that a bank layer in a display is made from a black bank (Abstract), while Tsay teaches (paragraph 0078) a black polyimide.
Luo/Miura, Tsay, and Ozawa teach analogous arts directed either to display comprising banks or materials used in the semiconductor industry, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Luo/Miura device in view of the Ozawa and Tsay teachings, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Ozawa and Tsay created successfully operated devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to use a black polyimide (per Tsay) for the bank in the device of Claim 6, since such choice allows preventing creation a parasitic capacitance associated with data lines and driving circuit (Ozawa, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 (as far as the claim is understood) and Claim 11 contain allowable subject matter – they would be allowed if amended to include all limitations of a corresponding base claim (on which each of them depends) and all (if any) intervening claims, while correcting a limitation of Claim 3 to exclude a language that led to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Reason for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
.. Re Claim 3: the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such combination of limitations of Claim 3 (as interpreted) as: “the first shielding layer at least partially overlaps with an upper end surface of the anode, and is spaced apart from a lower end surface of the anode”, in combination with other limitation of Claim 3 and with all limitations of Claims 1 and 2, on which Claim 3 depends.
Re Claim 11: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation as: “in a plan view of the display device, the first shielding layer overlaps with the second shielding layer in an edge area of the anode”, in combination with all limitations of Claim 10, on which Claim 11 depends.
The prior arts of record, in addition to the prior arts cited by the current Office Action, also include: Deng et al. (US 2024/0251622), Kim et al. (US 2016/0020422), Jung et al. (US 2018/0097047), and Yan et al. (US 2017/0162606).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 03/05/26