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 .
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 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.
Status of the application
This office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filled on 05/29/2026.
Oath/Declaration
The oath or declaration filed on 11/10/2023 is acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Species I (Fig [ 5-8], with claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-15, 25-28, 36-38, 41 and 61, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 04/25/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, fails to discloses common specific technical features, and a search on all the pending claims can easily be conducted simultaneously for all species and serious search burden.
Examiner like to note that, “wherein the sub-pixel comprises a pixel opening, the pixel opening is configured to define a light-emitting region of the sub-pixel”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US Pat MATSUEDA 2019/0027092 A1, (Para [ 0078]).
The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources or non-patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Furthermore, the species require separate classification searches (i.e. (H10K59/1216 or H10K59/1213 or H10K59/122 or H10K59/1315 or H10K59/88 or H10K59/121 or H10K59/131 or G09G2300/0413 or G09G2300/0426 or G09G2300/0842 or G09G2330/021 or G09G3/3233 or H10K59/123 or H10K59/805) such as there are mutually exclusive features, and these mutually exclusive features are categorized in the separate classes. Additionally, the species require different text searches. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
However, the features of claim 2 such as “the sub-pixel satisfies a following formula: AU=|U02-U01|, where U01 is a coordinate distance between a chromaticity coordinate point at a first viewing angle and a chromaticity coordinate point at a 0-degree viewing angle, U02 is a coordinate distance between a chromaticity coordinate point at a second viewing angle and the chromaticity coordinate point at the 0-degree viewing angle, and AU is an absolute value of a difference between U02 and U01, the chromaticity coordinate point at the 0-degree viewing angle is a chromaticity coordinate point at a normal line passing through a center of the display substrate, the first viewing angle and the second viewing angle are arranged at opposite sides of the normal line and have an equal included angle value with the normal line, andAUs0.0020” does not support elected species I, (Figure.[5-8]), as indicted below. Therefore, claims 10 is withdrawn. Clams 11-15 are withdrawn based on the dependency of claim 10.
This office action considers claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-16, 18, 20, 22, 25-28, 31-32, 36-38, 41 and 61 pending for prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 25-28, 36-38, 41 and 61 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, The instant claims recite limitation “an orthographic projection of a channel of the driving transistor on the base substrate overlaps with the orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the base substrate, and the display substrate satisfies a following relationship:
a value range of (W*L+S2)*M1/M2 is [0.014, 0.133], and a value range of S2/(W*L) is [2.82, 28.85],where W is a width of the channel of the driving transistor, L is a length of the channel of the driving transistor, S2 is a facing area between the second electrode plate and the first electrode plate, M1 is a count of pixel openings in the display substrate, and M2 is an area of the display substrate.” , there is no specific value range is provided. In addition, [0.014, 0.133] and [2.82, 28.85], are they applicable for any given value or specific value, is not clear. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required.
Regarding Claim 6, The instant claims recite limitation “a maximum size of the pixel opening in a second direction is WO, the first direction intersects with the second direction, a distance between the channel of the driving transistor and the central axis is D1, and a value range of 2*D1/WO is [0.2, 0.4] or [0.6, 0.8]” is not clear because, there is no specific value range is provided. In addition, [0.2, 0.4] or [0.6, 0.8] are they applicable for any given value or specific value, is not clear. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required.
Regarding Claim 7, The instant claims recite limitation “a distance between farthest edges of the plurality of signal lines in the first direction is Hs, and a value range of L/(HO-Hs) is [0.16, 0.61] is not clear because, there is no specific value range is provided. In addition, [0.16, 0.61] are they applicable for any given value or specific value, is not clear. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required.
Regarding Claim 9, The instant claims recite limitation “relationship between Ss and SO satisfies: Ss=A*SO+B, where a value range of A is [0.42, 0.82] and a value range of B is [-2700, - 3100] is not clear because, there is no specific value range is provided. In addition, B is [-2700, - 3100] are they applicable for any given value or specific value, is not clear. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required.
Regarding Claim 25, The instant claims recite limitation “a maximum size of the pixel opening in the second direction is WO, the plurality of sub-pixels comprise a first sub-pixel and a second sub-pixel that are adjacent to each other in the second direction, a size of one of two first power connection lines in the second direction is Xb1, a size of the other of the two first power connection lines in the second direction is Xb2, and a value range of (Xb1+Xb2)/WO is [0.08, 0.48]” is not clear because, there is no specific value range is provided. In addition, [0.08, 0.48] are they applicable for any given value or specific value, is not clear. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required.
Regarding Claim 26, The instant claims recite limitation “one sub- pixel away from the driving circuit has a first brightness L1, one sub-pixel close to the driving circuit has a second brightness L2, and a value range of |L1-L21 is [1, 9].” is not clear because, there is no specific value range is provided. In addition, |L1-L21 is [1, 9] are they applicable for any given value or specific value, is not clear. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required.
Regarding Claim 27, The instant claims recite limitation “a central axis of the display substrate has a third brightness L3, one sub-pixel close to one of the two driving circuits has a fourth brightness L4, an extending direction of the central axis of the display substrate is the same as an extending direction of one of the two driving circuits, and a value range of |L3-L41 is [1, 9]” is not clear because, there is no specific value range is provided. In addition, [1, 9] are they applicable for any given value or specific value, is not clear. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required.
Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 25-28, 36-38, 41 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because of their dependency status from claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights