DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed 1/12/2024.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 21 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/3/2024 and 4/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 and 8-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sub-pixel” (singular form) in line 2 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because the claim previously introduces “a plurality of sub-pixels” (plural form), and thus, it is unclear which specific “sub-pixel” element is being referenced in the limitation “the sub-pixel” in line 2 of the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the first signal line” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the second signal line” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the pixel definition pattern” (singular form) in line 2 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because the claim depends from claim 1 which previously introduces “a plurality of pixel definition patterns” (plural form), and thus, it is unclear which specific “pixel definition pattern” element is being referenced in the limitation “the pixel definition pattern” in line 2 of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the pixel definition pattern” (singular form) in line 2 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because the claim depends from claim 1 which previously introduces “a plurality of pixel definition patterns” (plural form), and thus, it is unclear which specific “pixel definition pattern” element is being referenced in the limitation “the pixel definition pattern” in line 2 of claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the pixel definition pattern” (singular form) in lines 1-2 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because the claim depends from claim 1 which previously introduces “a plurality of pixel definition patterns” (plural form), and thus, it is unclear which specific “pixel definition pattern” element is being referenced in the limitation “the pixel definition pattern” in lines 1-2 of claim 12.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the sub-pixel” (singular form) in line 3 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because the claim previously introduces “a plurality of sub-pixels” (plural form), and thus, it is unclear which specific “sub-pixel” element is being referenced in the limitation “the sub-pixel” in line 3 of the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the second display region” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note the dependent claims 2-6 and 8-20 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2022/0262876 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 3 and 5 of Lee disclose a display substrate, comprising: a base substrate 110 (“base layer”- ¶0061) and a plurality of sub- pixels PXA (“light emitting area”- ¶0091) arranged on the base substrate 110, wherein the sub-pixel PXA comprises a sub-pixel driving circuit 120 (“circuit layer”- ¶0061) and a light-emitting element 100PE (“light emitting element”- ¶0066), the light-emitting element 100PE comprises an anode pattern AE (“pixel electrode”- ¶0089, which is analogous to the anode), and the anode pattern AE is coupled to the sub-pixel driving circuit 120; wherein the display substrate further comprises:
a plurality of pixel definition patterns 70p (“pixel definition patterns”- ¶0091), wherein at least one pixel definition pattern 70p in the plurality of pixel definition patterns 70p comprises at least one pixel aperture 70op1 (“opening”- ¶0091), at least a portion of the light-emitting element 100PE is located in the pixel aperture 70op1, an orthographic projection of the at least one pixel definition pattern 70op onto the base substrate 110 covers at least a portion of an orthographic projection of the sub-pixel driving circuit 120 onto the base substrate 110, and covers at least a portion of an orthographic projection of a gap between at least two adjacent sub-pixel driving circuits 120 onto the base substrate 110, since 70p vertically overlaps circuit 120 and the area outside circuit 120, which would constitute the gap between adjacent circuits 120, and the plurality of pixel definition patterns 70p are configured to shield light, because 70p are formed of black material (¶0122), which would block light.
Regarding claim 2, Figures 3 and 5 of Lee disclose wherein the plurality of pixel definition patterns 70p are independent of one another.
Regarding claim 3, Figures 3 and 5 of Lee disclose wherein at least some pixel definition patterns 70] in the plurality of pixel definition patterns 70p are formed as a one-piece structure.
Regarding claim 4, Figures 3 and 5 of Lee disclose wherein the at least one pixel definition pattern 70p comprises a black pixel definition pattern (¶0122).
Regarding claim 9, Figures 3 and 5 of Lee disclose wherein in the at least some pixel definition patterns 70p formed as the one-piece structure, a spacing region 70op2 (“opening”- ¶0091) is arranged between adjacent pixel definition patterns 70p, an orthographic projection of a boundary of the spacing region 70op2 onto the base substrate 110 surrounds at least a portion of the first signal line MS1 (“mesh line”- ¶0123) and/or at least a portion of the second signal line MS2 (“mesh line”- ¶0123) in the display substrate.
Regarding claim 10, Figures 3 and 8 of Lee disclose wherein an orthographic projection of an outer boundary of the pixel definition pattern 70p onto the base substrate 110 is rectangular.
Regarding claim 11, Figures 3 and 5 of Lee disclose wherein an orthographic projection of an outer boundary of the pixel definition pattern 70p onto the base substrate 110 is circular, since the shape of 70p in Figure 5 is approximately circular.
Regarding claim 19, Figures 3 and 5 of Lee disclose wherein the display substrate comprises a first display region (i.e., the column area with four 70-1) and a second display region (i.e., the column area with two 70-1 regions), the first display region is located at least at one side of the second display region; and
the plurality of sub-pixels PXA comprises a plurality of first sub-pixels PXA and a plurality of second sub-pixels PXA, the plurality of first sub-pixels PXA are located in the first display region, the plurality of second sub-pixels PXA are located in the second display region, a pixel density for the plurality of second sub-pixels PXA is less than or equal to a pixel density for the plurality of first sub- pixels PXA, the plurality of pixel definition patterns 70-1 (analogous to 70p) are located in the second display region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8, 12-18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5 (which claims 6, 8 and 12-14 depend from), the prior art of record including Lee, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the sub-pixel driving circuit comprises a first driving portion and/or a second driving portion, wherein an orthographic projection of the first driving portion onto the base substrate does not overlap with an orthographic projection of a corresponding one of the at least one pixel aperture onto the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of the second driving portion onto the base substrate overlaps with an orthographic projection of the corresponding one of the at least one pixel aperture onto the base substrate; and the orthographic projection of the at least one pixel definition pattern onto the base substrate fully covers the orthographic projection of the first driving portion onto the base substrate”.
Regarding claim 15 (which claims 16-18 depend from), the prior art of record including Lee, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the display substrate further comprises an encapsulation layer and a plurality of black matrix patterns, the encapsulation layer is located between the plurality of black matrix patterns and the base substrate, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of black matrix patterns onto the base substrate at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of a corresponding one of the plurality of pixel definition patterns onto the base substrate”.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record including Lee, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein a light transmittance of the first display region is less than a light transmittance of the second display region”.
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding independent claim 21, Figures 3 and 5 of Lee disclose a display device, comprising a display substrate, wherein the display substrate comprises a base substrate 110 (“base layer”- ¶0061) and a plurality of sub- pixels PXA (“light emitting area”- ¶0091) arranged on the base substrate 110, wherein the sub-pixel PXA comprises a sub-pixel driving circuit 120 (“circuit layer”- ¶0061) and a light-emitting element 100PE (“light emitting element”- ¶0066), the light-emitting element 100PE comprises an anode pattern AE (“pixel electrode”- ¶0089, which is analogous to the anode), and the anode pattern AE is coupled to the sub-pixel driving circuit 120;
wherein the display substrate further comprises a plurality of pixel definition patterns 70p (“pixel definition patterns”- ¶0091), wherein at least one pixel definition pattern 70p in the plurality of pixel definition patterns 70p comprises at least one pixel aperture 70op1 (“opening”- ¶0091), at least a portion of the light-emitting element 100PE is located in the pixel aperture 70op1, an orthographic projection of the at least one pixel definition pattern 70op onto the base substrate 110 covers at least a portion of an orthographic projection of the sub-pixel driving circuit 120 onto the base substrate 110, and covers at least a portion of an orthographic projection of a gap between at least two adjacent sub-pixel driving circuits 120 onto the base substrate 110, since 70p vertically overlaps circuit 120 and the area outside circuit 120, which would constitute the gap between adjacent circuits 120, and the plurality of pixel definition patterns 70p are configured to shield light, because 70p are formed of black material (¶0122), which would block light.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the display device further comprises a photosensitive sensor, the photosensitive sensor is located at a non-displaying side of the display substrate and at least a portion of the photosensitive sensor is located in the second display region.
Thus, regarding independent claim 21, the prior art of record including Lee, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the display device further comprises a photosensitive sensor, the photosensitive sensor is located at a non-displaying side of the display substrate and at least a portion of the photosensitive sensor is located in the second display region”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takahashi et al. (US 2021/0159453 A1), which discloses a display substrate comprising a plurality of pixel definition patterns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights