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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 02 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. US 2021/0376038.
PNG
media_image1.png
623
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
512
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Won et al. US 2021/0376038
Regarding claim 1, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] disclose a display device comprising:
a substrate 100 [0086] comprising a first display area MDA, CDA2 and a second display area CDA1 around the first display area MDA, CDA2;
pixels PX on the substrate and comprising respective pixel transistors (annotated above, Fig. 9B) in the first display area CDA1, and respective light-emitting elements 200b, 200a in the first display area CDA1 and the second display area MDA, CDA2 and connected to the respective pixel transistors (annotated above, Fig. 9B); and
connection lines WL1 WL2 Fig. 9A, [0146]-[0153] connecting the pixel transistors with the light-emitting elements 200a, 200b, respectively,
wherein each of the connection lines comprises one or more straight portions extending in a first direction (annotated above, Fig. 9A), and one or more oblique portions connected to the straight portions and extending in an oblique direction inclined by an angle. Won et al. do not expressly disclose the angle equal to a multiple of 45° with respect to the first direction, and wherein angles formed by the straight portions and the oblique portions of the connection lines are equal to each other.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 2, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein the angles formed by the straight portion and the oblique portion of each of the connection lines is equal to 135°.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 1 including the connection lines having a width, but do not expressly teach wherein teach of the connection lines has a width of a first length.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 3 including straight portions of two adjacent ones of the connection lines are spaced apart from each other Fig. 9A, but do not expressly teach wherein by a spacing equal to the first length.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
PNG
media_image3.png
512
754
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Won et al. US 2021/0376038.
Regarding claim 5, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the pixels further comprise:
connection electrodes connected to the respective pixel transistors (annotated above, Fig. 9B);
first connection portions FCP overlapping the connection electrodes; and
second connection portions SCP overlapping first electrodes of the light-emitting elements 200a, 200b, and wherein each of the connection lines (annotated above, Fig. 9B) is connected between a first connection portion FCP and a second connection portion SCP of one of the pixels PX.
Regarding claim 6, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 5, wherein the connection lines comprise: (annotated above, Fig. 9A) a first connection line comprising a single straight portion and a single oblique portion; and a second connection line adjacent to the first connection line and comprising at least two straight portions and at least two oblique portions.
Regarding claim 7, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 6, wherein the first connection portion FCP connected to the first connection line (e.g. in MDA, CDA2) and the first connection portion FCP connected to the second connection line (e.g. in CD1) are arranged in parallel in the first direction Fig. 9A, and wherein the second connection portion SCP connected to the first connection line (e.g. in MDA, CDA2) and the second connection portion SCP connected to the second connection line (e.g. in CD1) are arranged in parallel in the first direction Fig. 9A.
Regarding claim 8, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 7, wherein each of the straight portions of the second connection line (e.g. in CD1) is parallel to the straight portion of the first connection line (e.g. in MDA, CDA2) in the first direction or in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
512
754
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Won et al. US 2021/0376038.
Regarding claim 12, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a circuit layer on the substrate 100 and comprising the pixel transistors (annotated above); and
a light-emitting element layer 220 overlapping the circuit layer and comprising the light-emitting elements 200a, 200b.
Regarding claim 13, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 12, further comprising:
an embedded driver circuit (annotated above) in the circuit layer and comprising a driver transistor (annotated above) in the second display area.
Regarding claim 14, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 13, wherein the embedded driver circuit (annotated above) overlaps the light-emitting element 200b of at least one of the pixels PX.
Regarding claim 17, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the pixels PX1, PX2, PX3 comprises a pixel driving unit comprising at least one pixel transistor and an emission unit comprising at least one light-emitting element [0129], and wherein, among the pixels, at least two pixels having respective pixel driving units adjacent to each other and respective light-emitting units adjacent to each other form a unit pixel, Figs. 1-3.
Regarding claim 18, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 17, wherein pixel driving units and light-emitting units of unit pixels formed by the pixels are in the first display area CDA1 and the second display area MDA, CDA2, wherein the pixel driving units of the unit pixels are in the first display area CDA1, and wherein the emission units of the unit pixels are in the first display area CDA1 and the second display area MDA, CDA2 but do not expressly teach
wherein the pixel driving units of the unit pixels are in the first display area CDA1 at a first pitch in the first direction, and wherein the emission units of the unit pixels are in the first display area CDA1 and the second display area MDA, CDA2 at a second pitch greater than the first pitch in the first direction.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 19, Won et al. in Figs. 9A, 9B and [0146]-0189] teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the straight portion and the oblique portion of each of the connection lines are formed as a single piece (annotated above, Fig. 9A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 15 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, in the context of the claims:
Regarding claim 9. The display device of claim 1, further comprising: a dummy pattern in a space between the connection lines and comprising a straight pattern parallel to the straight portions of the connection lines and an oblique pattern parallel to the oblique portions of the connection lines. Claims 10-11 directly depend from claim 9.
Regarding claim 15. The display device of claim 13, wherein a first pixel among the pixels comprises a first pixel transistor in the first display area and a first light-emitting element in the second display area, and wherein a second pixel among the pixels comprises a second pixel transistor in the first display area and a second light-emitting element in the first display area. Claim 16 directly depends from claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 J. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights