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 species 4 of Fig 9: encompassing claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-22 in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 07/17/2026”, is acknowledged, along with cancellation of claims 5, 10 and14.
However, listing of all (except one i.e., claim 23) claims on species 4 of Fig 9 is against the suggested guideline given in “Requirement for Restriction/Election - 06/03/2026” which copied over here as “Applicant is advised that a reply to this requirement must include an identification of the species that is elected consonant with this requirement, and a listing of all claims readable thereon, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election”.
On the interest of the compact prosecution, this office action exclude claim 12-13 and 15-22) along with previously excluded claim 23, as it is found, there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species-VII as set forth in “Requirement for Restriction/Election -06/03/2026” because at least the following reasons apply:
First of all, species 4 of Fig 9 does not read on claims 13 and 15-22. As best understood from the disclosure, it appears claim 13 (and its dependent claims 15-22) read upon specie 4 (figure 8).
Secondly, the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter as exemplified by the aforementioned mutually exclusive characteristics, while the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (different search strategies or search queries, as evidenced by the above-defined distinctions between the species) (see MPEP § 808.02) and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Therefore, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper
The requirement is still deemed proper , and is therefore made FINAL, and thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.03(b)) remaines an election without traverse.
In view of the above, this office action considers claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-23 pending for prosecution, of which, claims 13, 15-22 and 23 are withdrawn, and elected claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12 are examined on their merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (ZA; Fig 2; [0061]) = (element ZA; Figure No. 2; Paragraph No. [0061]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The primary reference citation may not be preceded by the inventor tag, wherein the other reference citation will carry inventor tag. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by BALLOT; Noémie et al. (US 20220140006 A1) hereinafter referenced as Ballot.
Regarding claim 1, Ballot teaches a detection substrate. comprising (see the entire document, figs 1-6 along with other relevant figures, specifically as cited below):
PNG
media_image1.png
539
1071
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ballot Figures 2 (left); 3 Right top; 5 right bottom
a base substrate (S; figs 2-6; first cited at [0061]) comprising a photosensitive area (ZA; Fig 2; [0061]), and a peripheral area (ZP) surrounding the photosensitive area (ZA);
a plurality of organic photodetectors (OP; fig 1; [0049) on the base substrate (S), wherein the plurality of organic photodetectors (OP) are arranged in an array in the photosensitive area (ZA; Fig 1; [0049]), and each of the organic photodetectors (OP) comprises a first electrode (E1; fig 3; or 201a in Fig 5;[0055]), an organic photodetection function layer (OST/202) and a second electrode (E2) which are arranged in a stack manner, wherein second electrodes (E2) of all the organic photodetectors (OP) are formed as an integrated second electrode and extend from the photosensitive area (ZA) to the peripheral area (ZP);
a bias line (comprising {201b portion of 201 in ZF and 51,52} i.e., bias line, in Fig 3,-6,, used as an interconnection structure to bias the upper electrode E2 of the organic photodiodes of the active area to bias voltage Vbias, by an overlapping in direct contact; and LSGOA comprises on a side of plate 50 a finger-shaped region 51 extending towards an edge of the substrate to allow the application of external bias voltage Vbias via contacting pads 52 [0062]), wherein the bias line is a strip-shaped line extending along a first direction (Y; Fig 3-65) in the peripheral area (ZP), and is electrically connected with the second electrodes (E2) in the peripheral area (ZP); and
a minimum distance (depicted in Fig 3, as gap between two sections 201a and 201b of 201) between the bias line (201b) and the organic photodetection function layer (OST in 202 in ZA; Fig 3-5; [0055]) in a second direction (X) is greater than a preset threshold (construed directly and unambiguously from figure 5);
wherein the first direction (X) and the second direction (Y) are perpendicular to each other (fig 2), and the first direction and the second direction are both parallel to the base substrate (S).
Regarding claim 2, Ballot as applied to the detection substrate according to claim 1, further teaches, wherein
the peripheral area (ZP) comprises a first peripheral area (20; Fig 2; [0062]) and a second peripheral area (LSGOA; Fig 2; [0062]), wherein the first peripheral area (20) is configured to bond a gate driver chip (20), and the second peripheral area (LSGOA) is opposite to the first peripheral area ; and
the integrated second electrodes (E2/203) extends from the photosensitive area (OST) to the second peripheral area (LSGOA), and the bias line ({201b,51,52}) is located in the second peripheral area (LSGOA; Figs 2-6).
Regarding claim 3, Ballot as applied to the detection substrate according to claim 1, further teaches, wherein
an orthographic projection of a boundary of the bias line (201b,51/52) at a side away from the photosensitive area (OST; Fig 3; [0055]) on the base substrate (S) is approximately coincident with an orthographic projection of a boundary of the integrated second electrode (E2 or 203 in ZA) on the base substrate (S) are approximately coincident (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 4, Ballot as applied to the detection substrate according to claim 1, further teaches, wherein the bias line ({201b,51,52}) comprises:
a first bias portion (201b; Figs 3-6;[0067), wherein the first bias portion and the first electrode (E1 or 201a) are in a same layer (201) and of same material, and the first bias portion (201b) is in direct contact with the integrated second electrodes (203);
a second bias portion (51/52), wherein the second bias portion is located between a layer where the first electrode (201a) is and the base substrate (S), and the second bias portion (51/52) is electrically connected with the first bias portion (201b).
Regarding claim 6, Ballot as applied to the detection substrate according to claim 4, further teaches, (the detector) further comprising a first insulating layer (CP; Fig 3; [0055]), wherein the first insulating layer is located between the layer where the first electrode (E or 201) is and the base substrate (S);
the first insulating layer (CP) comprises a first via hole, and an orthographic projection of the first via hole (that accommodates 51/52) on the base substrate (S) is located within an orthographic projection of the bias line ({201b,51,52}) on the base substrate (S); and
the first bias portion (201b) and the second bias portion (51/52) are electrically connected through the first via hole ([0062]).
Regarding claim 7, Ballot as applied to the detection substrate according to claim 6, further teaches, (the detector) further comprising:
a pixel driving circuit (Ts; Fig 5; [0052]) and a second insulating layer (105; Fig 5, [0075]);
wherein the pixel driving circuit (Ts) is located between a layer where the second bias portion (CP) is and the base substrate (S), and the second insulating layer (105) is located between the layer where the second bias portion is and a layer where the pixel driving circuit (Ts) is;
the first insulating layer (CP) and the second insulating layer (105) comprise a second via hole (the Via hole through which Ts is connected to E1; Fig 5; ([0060]) passing through the first insulating layer (CP) and the second insulating layer (105), and an orthographic projection of the second via hole on the substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the organic photodetector (OST) on the base substrate (S);
the pixel driving circuit (Ts) is electrically connected (Fig 5) with the organic photodetector (OST) through the second via hole ([0060]).
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 of this title, 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALLOT; Noémie et al. (US 20220140006 A1) hereinafter referenced as Ballot.
Regarding claim 12, Ballot as applied to the detection substrate according to claim 1, while further teaches, wherein a (minimum) distance between the bias line (201b) and the organic photodetection function layer (OST) in the second direction (X), but does not expressly disclose “is greater than or equal to 500 μm and less than or equal to 600 μm”.
However, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative distance i.e., “ a minimum distance “is greater than or equal to 500 μm and less than or equal to 600 μm” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Instead, instant application in paragraph [0045] discloses the claim range as optionally as “Optionally, in the second direction X, the minimum distance d from the bias voltage line 103 to the organic photodetection function layer 1022 can be greater than or equal to 500 μm and less than or equal to equal to 600 μm, for example, d is 550 μm.”. Applicant has not disclosed that having a minimum distance “is greater than or equal to 500 μm and less than or equal to 600 μm structure i.e., the ratio of distance value, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions, alignment, positioning, or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimension are critical. (.In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). In view of the above, inter alia, the limitation “a minimum distance “is greater than or equal to 500 μm and less than or equal to 600 μm” is not patentable over Ballot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 11 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112.
Regarding claim 8, the references of the Prior Art of record, supra and given in PTO-892 and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: recited features of a detection substrate of claim 8, wherein
the bias line comprises a plurality of first sub-bias lines and a plurality of second sub-bias lines, the plurality of first sub-bias lines and the plurality of second sub-bias lines are arranged in a same layer and intersect with each other; wherein the first sub-bias lines extend along the first direction , and the second sub-bias lines extend along the second direction.
These novel features of claim 8 are not disclosed in Ballot, cannot be learnt from the other reference documents in PTO-892, are not common general knowledge in the art, and have the technical effect of avoiding a short circuit between a bias line and a top electrode and a short circuit between a bias line and an organic functional layer as disclosed in instant specification paragraphs [0046].
Regarding claim 9 and 11, as these inherit the allowable subject matter from objected claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 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 on 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.
/MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights