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 (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. Claims 1-26 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-26 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 a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “developed” in Claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “assembled or manufactured,” while the accepted meaning is “anything evolving, getting more advanced, or useful over time”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In addition, the apparatus described in Claim 1 was developed prior to filing the instant application. The limitation “the first portion faces the first display portion with the second display portion therebetween when the display panel is developed” implies the apparatus has not yet been developed.
Regarding Claim 2. Claim 2 contains essentially the same claim term as Claim 1 and therefore is also rejected under 35 USC §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, which a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 3-26. Claims 3-26 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for containing the indefinite subject matter of their respective parent claim.
In support of compact prosecution the cited limitation is construed:
the first portion faces the first display portion with the second display portion therebetween while assembling the display panel is then
the first portion is folded back to a back side of the first display portion, and
wherein the first portion comprises a terminal portion.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim (US 2020/0393870) in view of Kwak (US 20128/0183913). All reference is to Sim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 1 (Original), Sim teaches an electronic device comprising:
a housing [fig. 3A @300, ¶0077, “FIG. 3A shows a perspective view of the electronic device 300 … the electronic device 300 may include various electronic components and a housing … The housing may include a front side, a rear side facing the front side, and lateral sides (e.g. top side, bottom side, left side, and right side) surrounding the space formed between the front side and the rear side to form the appearance of the electronic device 300. At least a portion of the housing may be composed of a display”]; and
a display panel having flexibility [¶0104, “As shown in part (a) of FIG. 9, a flexible panel in the WQHD environment may be fabricated based on the standard resolution (2560*1440)”] and provided in the housing [¶0077], wherein the display panel comprises
a first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910],
a second display portion [fig. 9(a) @920 or 940],
a third display portion [fig. 9(a) @930 or 950], and
a first portion [fig. 9(a) @960 and 970], wherein
the first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910] is on a front surface of the housing,
wherein the second display portion [fig. 9(a) @920 or 940] is seamlessly continuous with the first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910] and is on a first side surface of the housing [fig. 9(a) top or bottom side],
wherein the third display portion [fig. 9(a) @930 or 950] is seamlessly continuous [¶0104 teaches a single flexible panel formed to fit over sides] with the first display portion and is on a second side surface of the housing [fig. 9(a) @right or left] that is adjacent to the first side surface, wherein
the first portion [fig. 9(a) @960 and 970] coupled to the first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910] with the second display portion [fig. 9(a) @940] therebetween when the display panel is developed [construed as during assembly process, fig. 9(a) illustrates display panels, interface portion (970) and circuit portion (970)], wherein
the first portion [fig. 9(a) @960 and 970] comprises a terminal portion [the connector coupling the display driver chip to the interface is construed a terminal portion, ¶0106, “The flexible panel shown in part (a) … of FIG. 9 may be driven by one display driver chip (DDI) 970 … through an interface 960”]
Sim does not teach the first portion is folded back to a back side of the first display portion and faces the first display portion
Kwak teaches a first portion [fig. 7 @256] is folded back to a back side of a first display portion [fig. 7 @250] and faces the first display portion [fig. 7 illustrates claimed structure]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of folding a non-display portion to face the backside of a first display portion, as taught by Kwak, into the electronic device taught by Sim in order to reduce the size of the non-display area and reduce the thickness of the electronic device.
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Sim teaches an electronic device comprising:
a housing [fig. 3A @300, ¶0077, “FIG. 3A shows a perspective view of the electronic device 300 … the electronic device 300 may include various electronic components and a housing … The housing may include a front side, a rear side facing the front side, and lateral sides (e.g. top side, bottom side, left side, and right side) surrounding the space formed between the front side and the rear side to form the appearance of the electronic device 300. At least a portion of the housing may be composed of a display”]; and
a display panel having flexibility [¶0104, “As shown in part (a) of FIG. 9, a flexible panel in the WQHD environment may be fabricated based on the standard resolution (2560*1440)”] and provided in the housing [¶0077], wherein the display panel comprises
a first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910],
a second display portion [fig. 9(a) @930 or 950],
a third display portion [fig. 9(a) @920 or 940], and
a first portion [fig. 9(a) @960 and 970], wherein
the first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910] is on a front surface of the housing,
wherein the second display portion [fig. 9(a) @930 or 950] is seamlessly continuous with the first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910] and is on a first side surface of the housing [fig. 9(a) right or left side],
wherein the third display portion [fig. 9(a) @920] is seamlessly continuous [¶0104 teaches a single flexible panel formed to fit over sides] with the first display portion and is on a second side surface of the housing [fig. 9(a) @top] that is adjacent to the first side surface, wherein
the first portion [fig. 9(a) @960 and 970] coupled to the first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910] with the second display portion [fig. 9(a) @940] therebetween when the display panel is developed [construed as during assembly process, fig. 9(a) illustrates display panels, interface portion (970) and circuit portion (970)], wherein
the first portion [fig. 9(a) @960 and 970] comprises a circuit portion [¶0106, “The flexible panel shown in part (a) … of FIG. 9 may be driven by one display driver chip (DDI) 970 … through an interface 960”]
Sim does not teach the first portion is folded back to a back side of the first display portion and faces the first display portion
Kwak teaches a first portion [fig. 7 @256] is folded back to a back side of a first display portion [fig. 7 @250] and faces the first display portion [fig. 7 illustrates claimed structure]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of folding a non-display portion to face the backside of a first display portion, as taught by Kwak, into the electronic device taught by Sim in order to reduce the size of the non-display area and reduce the thickness of the electronic device.
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 2, wherein
the circuit portion [fig. 9(a) @970] comprises one or more of a shift register circuit, a demultiplexer circuit, a latch circuit, and a level shifter circuit [the Examiner takes Official Notice configuring a display driver chip to comprise one or more of a shift register circuit, a demultiplexer circuit, a latch circuit, and a level shifter circuit is well known in the art, ¶0106, “The flexible panel shown in part (a) or (b) of FIG. 9 may be driven by one display driver chip (DDI) 970”]
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 2, wherein
the circuit portion [fig. 9(a) @970] comprises a signal line driver circuit [¶0106 teaches a single display driver chip which is construed to comprise a source driver or signal line driver].
Regarding Claims 5 and 19 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1 and Claim 2, wherein
the display panel comprises a fourth display portion [fig. 9(a) @940 or 920],
wherein the fourth display portion is seamlessly continuous with the first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910] and is on a third side surface [fig. 9(a) @left or right] of the housing that is opposite to the first side surface and adjacent to the second side surface [claimed structure is illustrated in fig. 9(a)].
Regarding Claims 6 and 20 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1 and Claim 2, wherein
the display panel comprises a fifth display portion [fig. 9(a) @950 or 930], and wherein
the fifth display portion is seamlessly continuous with the first display portion [fig. 9(a) @910] and
is on a fourth side surface of the housing that is opposite to the second side surface and adjacent to the first side surface [claimed structure illustrated in fig. 9(a)].
Regarding Claims 9 and 22 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1 and Claim 2, wherein
the first portion [Kwak: fig. 7 @256] comprises a portion [Kwak: fig. 7 @254] fixed to a rear surface of the first display portion [Kwak: fig. 7 @250].
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Kwak and Jung (US 2023/0292581). All reference is to Sim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 7 and 21 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1 and Claim 2
Sim in view of Kwak does not teach the second display portion comprises a portion curved with a first curvature, wherein the third display portion comprises a portion curved with a second curvature, and wherein the first curvature is different from the second curvature
Jung teaches a second display portion [fig. 1 @A2] comprises a portion curved with a first curvature [R2], wherein
a third display portion fig. 1 @A1] comprises a portion curved with a second curvature [R1], and wherein
the first curvature is different from the second curvature [¶0075, “As shown in FIG. 2A … the first area A1 may be bent at a first curvature radius R1. As shown in FIG. 2B … the second area A2 may be bent at a second curvature radius R2”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of display portions having different curvatures, as taught by Jung, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak in order to define the boundaries of each display portion.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Kwak, Jung, and Cao (CN 110379832). All reference is to Sim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1
Sim in view of Kwak does not teach the second display portion comprises a portion curved with a first curvature, wherein the third display portion comprises a portion curved with a second curvature, and wherein the first curvature is larger than the second curvature
Jung teaches a second display portion [fig. 1 @A2] comprises a portion curved with a first curvature [R2], wherein
a third display portion fig. 1 @A1] comprises a portion curved with a second curvature [R1], and wherein
the first curvature is different from the second curvature [¶0075, “As shown in FIG. 2A … the first area A1 may be bent at a first curvature radius R1. As shown in FIG. 2B … the second area A2 may be bent at a second curvature radius R2”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of display portions having different curvatures, as taught by Jung, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak in order to define the boundaries of each display portion
Sim in view of Kwak and Jung does not teach the first curvature is larger than the second curvature
Cao teaches the first curvature [figs. 1 and 6 @240] is larger [page 6 lines 17-24, “the second display area 200 includes at least a first sub-bending area 230 and a second sub-bending area 240. The first sub-bending area 230 is connected to the first display area 100 , that is, the first sub-bending area 230 may be an extension of the second display area 200 . Since the second sub-bending area 240 is closer to the edge of the display panel 10 than the first sub-bending area 230, the degree of deformation is greater, so the bending curvature of the second sub-bending area 240 It is larger than the bending curvature of the first sub-bending area 230”] than the second curvature [figs. 1 and 6 @230]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of a first display portion having a greater curvature than a second display portion, as taught by Cao, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak and Jung in order to compensate for the red light color shift at large viewing angles (Cao: page 6 lines 33-36).
Claims 10-11, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Kwak and Ka (US 2019/0304366). All reference is to Sim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 10 and 23 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1 and Claim 2
Sim in view of Kwak does not teach the first display portion comprises a first pixel region, a second pixel region, and a third pixel region, wherein the first pixel region comprises a plurality of pixels, wherein the second pixel region comprises a plurality of pixels and a scan line driver circuit, and wherein the third pixel region comprises a plurality of pixels and a signal line driver circuit
Ka teaches a first display portion comprises a first pixel region [fig. 2 @A3], a second pixel region [fig. 2 @A2], and a third pixel region [fig. 2 @A1], wherein
the first pixel region [fig. 2 @A3] comprises a plurality of pixels, wherein
the second pixel region [fig. 2 @A2] comprises a plurality of pixels and a scan line driver circuit [fig. 2 @SDV2], and wherein
the third pixel region [fig. 2 @A1] comprises a plurality of pixels and a signal line driver circuit [fig. 2 @Data Driver]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of pixel regions configured with a plurality of scan drivers and a source driver, as taught by Ka, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak in order to improve brightness uniformity across a plurality of different sized display pixel areas [Ka: ¶0004, “A display apparatus having various display areas may include a plurality of areas having different surface areas as well as a rectangular shape. However, a brightness deviation may occur for each of the areas having different surface areas, for example, as a result of structural causes, or manufacturing causes. Thus, display quality may be reduced”].
Regarding Claim 11 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1, wherein
Sim in view of Kwak does not teach the first display portion comprises a first pixel region and a second pixel region, wherein the first pixel region comprises a plurality of pixels, and wherein the second pixel region comprises a plurality of pixels and a scan line driver circuit
Ka teaches a first display portion comprises a first pixel region [fig. 2 @A3], a second pixel region [fig. 2 @A2], wherein
the first pixel region [fig. 2 @A3] comprises a plurality of pixels, and
wherein the second pixel region [fig. 2 @A2] comprises a plurality of pixels and a scan line driver circuit [fig. 2 @SDV2]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of pixel regions configured with a scan driver as taught by Ka, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak in order to improve brightness uniformity across a plurality of different sized display pixel areas [Ka: ¶0004, “A display apparatus having various display areas may include a plurality of areas having different surface areas as well as a rectangular shape. However, a brightness deviation may occur for each of the areas having different surface areas, for example, as a result of structural causes, or manufacturing causes. Thus, display quality may be reduced”].
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Kwak and Jeon (US 2021/0382570). All reference is to Sim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 12 and 24 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1 and Claim 2
Sim in view of Kwak does not teach the first portion comprises a sensor portion, wherein the sensor portion comprises a pressure-sensitive sensor, and wherein the first portion comprises a portion fixed so that the sensor portion is on a rear surface of the first display portion
Jeon teaches a first portion [fig. 2B @108 and 110] comprises a sensor portion [fig. 2B @118], wherein
the sensor portion comprises a pressure-sensitive sensor [¶0076, “the pressure sensor 118 may include a first electrode 118a, a dielectric 118b disposed below the first electrode 118a, and a second electrode 118c disposed below the dielectric 118b”], and wherein
the first portion [fig. 2B @108 and 110] comprises a portion fixed so that the sensor portion [fig. 2B @118] is on a rear surface fig. 2B illustrates 118 located on rear surface of 104] of the first display portion [fig. 2B @104]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a pressure sensor on the rear surface of the display, as taught by Jeon, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak in order to measure the pressure applied to the display cover.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Kwak and Kahng (US 2020/0341576). All reference is to Sim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 13 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 2
Sim in view of Kwak does not teach a radiator plate in the housing, wherein the radiator plate is bonded to the first portion with a thermally conductive adhesive material
Kahng teaches a radiator plate [fig. 4A @311] in the housing [¶0112, “… the conductive sheets 310 and 311 may serve as a heat radiation sheet or may include a heat radiation sheet”], wherein
the radiator plate [fig. 4A @122] is bonded to the first portion with an adhesive material [¶0110, “the conductive sheet 311 may also be attached below the lower flat portion 122 of the display panel 100, using an adhesive layer”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a radiator plate in the device housing, as taught by Kahng, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak in order to dissipate heat generated by the display panel (Kahng: ¶0113)
Sim in view of Kwak and Kahng does not teach the adhesive is a thermally conductive adhesive
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a thermally conductive adhesive to adhere a heat dissipating radiator plate to a heat generating component in order to maximize the thermal transfer to the radiator plate.
Regarding Claim 14 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak and Kahng teaches the electronic device according to Claim 13, further comprising:
a battery in the housing [¶0079, “the display device 10 may further include a battery capable of supplying power to the display device 10”]
Sim in view of Kwak and Kahng does not teach the battery is bonded to the radiator plate with a thermally conductive adhesive material
Before the application was filed it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bond the device battery to a heat dissipating radiator with a thermally conductive adhesive material in order to maximize the heat conducted from an internal battery to a device designed to dissipate heat and prevent the battery and the electronic device from damage caused by excessive internal temperatures.
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Kwak, Kim (US 2022/0359791), and Hyun (US 2024/0152229). All reference is to Sim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 15 and 25 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1 and Claim 2, wherein
the first display portion comprises a plurality of pixels [¶0137, “the front display area 1510 has a resolution of 1440*2560, the content may be displayed using 2560 pixels in the horizontal direction and 1440 pixels in the vertical direction”]
Sim in view of Kwak does not teach each of the pixels comprises a display element and a transistor, wherein the transistor comprises an oxide semiconductor in a semiconductor layer where a channel is formed and wherein a source and a drain of the transistor are at different heights
Kim teaches each of the pixels [fig. 2 @PXL] comprises a display element [fig. 2 @LSU] and a transistor [fig. 2 @T1], wherein
a source [fig. 4 @S1] and a drain [fig. 4 @D1] of the transistor [fig. 4 @T1] are at different heights [illustrated by fig. 4]
Before the application was filed it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of a vertical transistor into a display pixel circuit, as taught by Kim, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak in order to more efficiently utilize the space of the pixel area (Kim: ¶0129)
Sim in view of Kwak and Kim does not teach the transistor comprises an oxide semiconductor in a semiconductor layer where a channel is formed
Hyun teaches a transistor comprises an oxide semiconductor in a semiconductor layer where a channel is formed [Hyun: ¶0192, “The thin film transistor TFT may include a semiconductor layer A, and … the semiconductor layer A may include amorphous silicon, an oxide semiconductor, or an organic semiconductor”]
Before the application was filed it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of a transistor comprising an oxide semiconductor layer, as taught by Hyun, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak and Kim in order to reduce transistor leakage current.
Claims 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Kwak, Kim, Hyun, and Lim (US 2024/0118727). All reference is to Sim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 16 and 26 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak, Kim, and Hyun teaches the electronic device according to Claim 15 and Claim 25
Sim in view of Kwak, Kim, and Hyun does not teach the semiconductor layer comprises at least one of In oxide, Ga oxide, Zn oxide, In-Zn oxide, In-Ga oxide, In-Sn oxide, In-Ti oxide, In-Ga-Al oxide, In-Ga-Sn oxide, In-Ga-Zn oxide, In-Sn-Zn oxide, In-Al-Zn oxide, In-Ti-Zn oxide, In-Ga-Sn-Zn oxide, and In-Ga-Al-Zn oxide
Lim teaches a semiconductor layer comprises zinc (Zn) oxide (ZnOx) [¶0091, “… the metal oxide semiconductor may include zinc oxide (ZnO.sub.x)”]
Before the application was filed it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of a zinc- oxide semiconductor layer, as taught by Lim, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak, Kim and Hyun in order to form display circuit transistors having reduced leakage current.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Kwak, Kim, and Lim. All reference is to Sim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 17 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak teaches the electronic device according to Claim 2, wherein
the first display portion comprises a plurality of pixels [¶0137, “the front display area 1510 has a resolution of 1440*2560, the content may be displayed using 2560 pixels in the horizontal direction and 1440 pixels in the vertical direction”], wherein
Sim in view of Kwak does not teach each of the pixels comprises a display element and a first transistor, wherein the circuit portion comprises a second transistor, wherein each of the first transistor and the second transistor comprises an oxide semiconductor in a semiconductor layer where a channel is formed, and wherein a source and a drain of each of the first transistor and the second transistor are at different heights
Kim teaches each of the pixels [fig. 2 @PXL] comprises a display element [fig. 2 @LSU] and a transistor [fig. 2 @T1], wherein the circuit portion comprises a second transistor [fig. 2 @T2], wherein
a source [fig. 4 @S1 and S2] and a drain [fig. 4 @D1 and D2] of each of the first transistor [fig. 4 @T1] and the second transistor [fig. 4 @T2] are at different heights [illustrated by fig. 4]
Before the application was filed it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of vertical transistors into a display pixel circuit, as taught by Kim, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak in order to more efficiently utilize the space of the pixel area (Kim: ¶0129)
Sim in view of Kwak and Kim does not teach each of the first transistor and the second transistor comprises an oxide semiconductor in a semiconductor layer where a channel is formed
Lim teaches a first transistor and a second transistor comprise a semiconductor layer comprising zinc (Zn) oxide (ZnOx) [¶0091, “… the metal oxide semiconductor may include zinc oxide (ZnO.sub.x)”]
Before the application was filed it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of a zinc- oxide semiconductor layer, as taught by Lim, into the electronic device taught by Sim in view of Kwak, Kim and Hyun in order to form display circuit transistors having reduced leakage current.
Regarding Claim 18 (Original), Sim in view of Kwak, Kim, and Lim teaches the electronic device according to Claim 17, wherein
the semiconductor layer comprises at least one of In oxide, Ga oxide, Zn oxide [Lim: ¶0091, “… the metal oxide semiconductor may include zinc oxide (ZnOx)”], In-Zn oxide, In-Ga oxide, In-Sn oxide, In-Ti oxide, In-Ga-Al oxide, In-Ga-Sn oxide, In-Ga-Zn oxide, In-Sn-Zn oxide, In-Al-Zn oxide, In-Ti-Zn oxide, In-Ga-Sn-Zn oxide, and In-Ga-Al-Zn oxide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The Examiner can normally be reached 1000-1800 EST. 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Douglas Wilson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights