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 Acknowledged
Applicant’s provisional election, with traverse, of Species II shown in Figs. 13-21 and Claims 11-13, 16, and 19-20 in the response (filed 04/27/26) to Restriction Requirements has been acknowledged. Together with the response, Applicant amended independent Claims 1, 11, and 24, as well as dependent Claims 4 and 30, for providing more unity of inventions for this National Stage PCT application, pointed out that Species IV was no longer present in the application because Claims 37-39 were permanently deleted, and requested to examine all remaining claims of the application by stating that Wang (CN 115101575), cited by the Restriction Requirements as a proof for lacking unity of inventions, does not teach such new limitation of independent claims as: “the common signal transmission lie surrounds the display region”, as Claim 24 recites (with similar limitations for Claims 1 and 11).
Although the above new limitation does not contribute to unity of inventions as being taught by many prior arts, including You et al. (US 2021/03276037) and Kwon et al. (KR 20180127605), better familiarity with the application (than on a stage of creating the Restriction Requirements) showed that Species I-III contain a lot of common features and can be examined together.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-13, 16, 19-20, 24-25, 27-28, 30-32 and 36 exist in the application and are examined on merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 24, 25, 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, 24, 25, 27 recite: “part” a few times with no article. Examiner suggests using an article: “a part” (or: “the part”) as appropriate.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-13, 16, 19-20, 24-25, 27-28, 30-32, and 36 are 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.
In re Claim 1: Original Claim 1 contains a limitation (lines 1-2): “a non-display region located on at least one side of the display region”, while lines 8-10, with the new amendment recite: “a common signal transmission line in the non-display region and electrically connected with the plurality of common electrode lines, wherein the common signal transmission line surrounds the display region”. The combination of limitations is not clear, since leads to a question: How the common transmission line in the non-display region can surround the display region when the non-display region is located only at one side of the display region?
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claimed subject matter.
For this Office Action, the above-cited limitation of lines 1-2 was interpreted as: “a non-display region surrounding the display region”.
In re Claim 2: Claim 2 recites: “a count of conductive structures is plural, a plurality of conductive structures is arranged”. The recitation is unclear, since Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 that recites: “a/the conductive structure” and does not refer to any plurality of conductive structures.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claimed subject matter.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted as: “the conductive structure is one of a plurality of conductive structures arranged”.
In re Claim 4: Lines 9-11 of Claim 4 recite: “the sub-pixel located in the display region further comprises a switching structure and a pixel electrode, and the switching structure comprises three electrodes electrically connected with the gate line, the data line and the pixel electrode respectively”. The recitation is rejected as contains a lot of “lack of antecedent basis” issues, such as: it does not clarify which sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels is cited with article “the”, which exactly gate line and data lines are cited with article “the”.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation of Claim 4 was interpreted as: “a sub-pixel located in the display region further comprises a switching structure and a pixel electrode, and the switching structure comprises three electrodes electrically connected with corresponding gate line, data line and with the pixel electrode respectively”.
In re Claim 6: Claim 6 recites (lines 3-4): “the plurality of connection blocks is disposed in the same layer as the plurality of data lines”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for using article “the” near “same layer”, since this layer was not earlier cited by Claims 4 and 1.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted as: “the plurality of connection blocks is disposed in a same layer as the plurality of data lines”.
In re Claim 9: Claim 9 recites in the last line: “the fourth conductive layer is disposed in the same layer as the common electrode”. For the same reason that is explained for Claim 6, the recitation is not clear and for this Office Action, it was interpreted as: “the fourth conductive layer is disposed in a same layer as the common electrode”.
In re Claims 5 and 36: Claims 5 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 1.
In re Claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on grounds similar to those explained for Claim 1, and for this Office Action, it was interpreted in a way similar to interpretation of Claim 1.
In re Claim 12: Lines 9-11 of Claim 12 are rejected on a same ground as shown for Claim 4, and for this Office Action, they were interpreted in a similar way. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 12: Lines 13 and 14 of Claim 12 is rejected for citing: “the same layer as the gate line” and: “in the same layer as the common electrode”, respectively – since the claim does not recite earlier that the gate line or the common electrode are disposed in any layer. Appropriate corrections are required.
In re Claim 13: A recitation (of line 8): “in the same layer as the plurality of data lines” is rejected for a lack of antecedent basis, since Claim 13 earlier, as well as Claims 11 and 12, on which Claim 13 depends, do(es) not teach that all data lines are disposed on/in one layer. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claims 16 and 19-20: Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 11.
In re Claim 24: Claim 24 is rejected based on grounds similar to those presented for Claim 1.
In re Claim 25: Claim 25 recites (lines 1-3): “the fanout wiring region comprises a plurality of fanout wiring regions, and each fanout wiring region comprises the middle region and the edge regions”. The recitation is unclear, since Claim 25 depends on Claim 24 which recites: “middle region” and “edge regions” for one fanout region, while the application does not teach that one fanout region comprises a plurality of fanout region and does not teach other fanout regions are related to the fanout wiring region of Claim 24 such that they comprise its middle and edge regions.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claimed subject matter.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation was interpreted as: “the fanout wiring region is one of a plurality of fanout wiring regions, and each fanout wiring region comprises corresponding middle region and edge regions”.
In re Claim 25: Lines 7-10 of Claim 25 recite: “the plurality of first connection structures is electrically connected with wire in the edge region of at least part of the plurality of fanout wiring regions, and wires in the middle region of at least part of the plurality of fanout wiring regions are electrically connected with the common signal transmission lines”. For same reasons that were cited earlier for other claims, the recitation is unclear, and for this Office Action, the recitation was interpreted as: “each of the plurality of first connection structures is electrically connected with an appropriate wire of a corresponding edge region of a respective fanout wiring region, and each of wires in a middle region of a respective fanout wiring region is electrically connected with the common signal transmission line”.
In re Claim 27: Claim 27 has multiple issues similar to some cited above for other claims and appropriate corrections are required.
In re Claim 28: Lines 1-3 of Claim 28 recite: “two electrostatic discharge units located at both sides of each second connection structure and adjacent to each second connection structure”; the recitation is rejected for a lack of antecedent bases; for this Office Action, the recitation was interpreted as: “two electrostatic discharge units located at both sides of a corresponding second connection structure and adjacent to this second connection structure”.
In re Claim 28: Lines 4-5 of Claim 28 recite: “wires in each fanout wiring regions are electrically connected with one electrostatic discharge unit groups, and at least one second connection structure is disposed in a plurality of gaps between the plurality of electrostatic discharge units”; the recitation is rejected for reasons similar to some of those cited above, and for this Office Action, it was interpreted as: “wires in each fanout wiring regions are electrically connected with a corresponding electrostatic discharge unit group, and at least one second connection structure is disposed in at least one gap of a plurality of gaps between the plurality of electrostatic discharge units”.
In re Claim 30: Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to lacks of antecedent basis for citing: “the same” – twice, instead of citing: “a same” twice. Appropriate corrections are required.
In re Claims 31 and 32: Claims 31 and 32 have a same issue as Claim 30; appropriate corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
At least independent Claims 1, 11, and 24, as interpreted contain allowable subject matter.
Reason for Identification Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claim 1: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitations of Claim 1 as: “a conductive structure is disposed between at least one fanout wiring region and the common signal transmission line, the conductive structure is electrically connected with a wire located at an edge in the at least one fanout wiring region, and the conductive structure is separated from the common signal transmission line”, in combination with other limitations of claims, as interpreted.
Re Claim 11: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitations of Claim 11 as: “a count of the plurality of fanout wiring region is N, the common signal transmission line comprises a first transmission portion extending in the first direction and located between the display region and the plurality of fanout wiring regions, a length of the first transmission portion is L, and a resistance of a part, with a length of L/2N, of the first transmission portion is not greater than 30 ohms”, in combination with other limitations of claims, as interpreted.
Re Claim 24: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitations of Claim 24 as: “a wire in a middle region of a corresponding fanout wiring region is electrically connected with the common signal transmission line through at least one connection structure”, in combination with other limitations of claims, as interpreted.
The prior arts of record include: You et al. (US 2021/0376037), Kwon et al. (KR 20180127605), Li et al. (CN 115083369) and Wang et al. (CN 11510575) – with English translations provided by the Applicant, Tominaga et al. (US 2021/0117031), Kim et al. (US 9,638949), Jin et al. (US 2018/0314371), and Moon et al. (US 11,640,789).
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: 06/05/26
Prosecution Insights