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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 04/13/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
Response to Arguments
With respect to the drawing object as failing to show the feature, “wherein the data line and the first data connection line are connected to each other at a same electrical node” of the previous of claims 1 and 11, Applicant has provided on pages 7-8 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered but it is not persuasive because while the paragraph [0021] of the specification discloses that the data line and the first data connection line may be connected to each other at a same electrical node, all of figures, specifically Figs. 6A-6B, do not show this feature, in according to 37 CFR 1.83(a). Note that the feature is associated with other features/ limitations in the claim to render the invention defined by the claim. Further, note that if Applicant has believed the drawing objection not proper, the Applicant should not amend the claims so that the argument is respect to the current claim. However, this drawing objection is withdrawn because the above underlined feature is amended, otherwise this drawing objection is maintained.
With respect to the drawing object as failing to show the feature, “wherein the second readout connection line overlaps with at least one of the first data connection line in a first area” of claims 1 and 13, Applicant has provided on page 8 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered but it is not persuasive because the paragraph [00121] of the specification discloses: “… the first connection lines BRSV2 … may be the first data connection lines …” and Fig. 6A explicitly shows “the first connection lines BRSV2 located only in the second connection area BRSA2 and the pad area PADA, but not located in the first area BRSA1.” In other words, the first data connection lines BRSV2 located only in the second connection area BRSA2 and the pad area PADA, but not located in the first area BRSA1. Applicant has indicated Fig. 16 showing the first data connection line labelled with “BRSV2_G” while the paragraph [0155] explicitly discloses “the first connection line BRSV2_G”, which is different from “the first data connection lines BRSV2.”
Further, note that Fig. 6A shows the first data connection line BRSV2 disconnected and aligned in a vertical direction with an unlabeled vertical line. However, this unlabeled vertical line can’t be same name with the first data connection line BRSV2 because they are separate from and are not connected to each other.
Furthermore, the above underlined feature can be construed as “wherein the second readout connection line overlaps with two, three, or all of the first data connection lines in a first area”, which is not shown in any figures.
Therefore, this drawing objection is proper and maintained.
With respect to the drawing object as failing to show the feature, “wherein the second data connection line overlaps with at least one of the first data connection line in a second area” of claims 6 and 18, Applicant has provided on page 9 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered but it is not persuasive because, as discussed above, the specification explicitly discloses the first data connection lines BRSV2 located only in the second connection area BRSA2 and the pad area PADA, but not located in the first area BRSA1, and the first connection line BRSV2_G being different from the first data connection lines BRSV2.
Furthermore, the above underlined feature can be construed as “wherein the second data connection line overlaps with two, three, or all of the first data connection lines in a second area”, which is not shown in any figures.
Therefore, this drawing objection is proper and maintained.
With respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant has provided on pages 10-11 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. Applicant has indicated the paragraph [0053] of the specification discloses: “… For example, the expression "at least one of a, b, or c," “at least one of a, b, and c,” and “at least one selected from the group consisting of a, b, and c” indicates only a, only b, only c, both a and b, both a and c, both b and c, all of a, b, and c, or variations thereof …” i.e., the phrase “at least one of the data line or the first data connection line,” as recited in the claims, means only the data line, only the first data connection line, or both the data line and the first data connection line. Examiner respectfully disagrees because:
(i) The above indicated paragraph [0053] of the specification discloses three phrases/ expressions, “at least one of a, b, or c,” “at least one of a, b, and c,” and “at least one selected from the group consisting of a, b, and c” all being same from each other that is incorrect. See the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc. (358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) and of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in Ex parte Jung (Appeal No. 2016-008290 (PTAB March 22, 2017)) are frequently cited for guidance on the use of conjunctive and disjunctive claim language. In SuperGuide, the Federal Circuit found that the meaning of “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B.” By contrast, the meaning of “at least one of A or B” would require A or B, but not both. Therefore, “at least one of a, b, or c” and “at least one of a, b, and c” both are not same from each other.
(ii) The phrase “at least one of the data line or the first data connection line,” as recited in the claims, meaning only the data line, only the first data connection line, or both the data line and the first data connection line is not correct as the phrase “at least one of A or B” typically means “at least one of A or at least one of B,” i.e., “at least one of the data line A or at least one of the first connection line,” but not “both the data line and the first data connection line,” as argued by the applicant. See the above decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
(iii) Further, note that the specification is not the measure of invention and limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims. Therefore, the term, “at least one,” can be broadly construed to include “two, three, or more”.
For the above reasons, these rejections are maintained.
With respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant has amended these claims and provided on pages 11-12 of the amendment arguments, which have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive as follows:
(i) Regarding to the rejection with respect to the limitation, “a light-emitting element configured to receive a data voltage from a data line, and emit light having a luminance based on the data voltage,” in the previously submitted claims 1 and 11, Applicant has amended this limitation and provided on pages 11-12 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered but it is not fully persuasive. Again, Examiner notes that if Applicant has believed the rejection not proper, Applicant should maintain the same and just provide an argument because it is not necessary to discuss the old limitation no longer present in the claim. Applicant has indicated ¶ [0061] discloses as much information recited in the claim, but does not explicitly discuss in detail how a light-emitting element LD is configured to receive a data voltage from a data line and emit light having a luminance based on the data voltage or based on only the data voltage, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted in the previous Office action and repeated below, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claim, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
In the instant case, in light of Fig. 3, the data voltage from a data line DLj must go to a number of elements [ST2, N2, ST1, N3, ST6, N4] before a final voltage reaches to an anode of the light emitting element LD. One skilled in the semiconductor or electronic art would have readily recognized that the final voltage can’t be same as the data voltage due to at least the processing delay time of each element and the addition and/or subtraction to the data voltage from the elements. Moreover, in light of Figs. 3 and 5 and the corresponding specification at ¶¶ [00110]-[00111], the light-emitting element LD emits light during the light-emitting period and the corresponding specification at ¶¶ [00110]-[00111] does not even discuss the data voltage in this period, but explicitly discloses “… The amount of driving current flowing through the first electrode and the second electrode of the first pixel transistor ST1 is adjusted according to the voltage maintained in the storage capacitor Cst. The light emitting element LD emits light having a luminance corresponding to the amount of driving current …”
(ii) Regarding to the rejection with respect to the old limitation, “wherein the data line and the first data connection line are connected to each other at a same electrical node,” in the previously submitted claims 1 and 11, Applicant has amended this limitation and provided on page 12 of the amendment an argument. Again, Applicant has continued providing argument on the limitation no longer present in the current amendment. See the above response to the drawing objection. However, this rejection has been withdrawn because this limitation is amended.
(iii) Regarding to the rejection with respect to the limitation, “wherein the second readout connection line overlaps with at least one of the first data connection line in a first area,” Applicant has provided on page 12 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered but it is not fully persuasive. See the above response to the drawing objection, whereat the Applicant has indicated the support for “the first connection line BRSV2_G”, which is different from “the first data connection lines BRSV2” of the above underlined limitation. In addition, the original disclosure, specifically Fig. 6A, discloses the second readout connection line [BRSH1] overlapping with the data line [SL2/ DL] in a first area [BRSA1], but not overlapping with two or all first data connection lines [BRSV2] in the first area [BRSA1], as contained by the above underlined limitation. Therefore, this rejection is proper and maintained.
With respect to the rejections of claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) regarding to the limitation, “wherein the second data connection line overlaps with at least one of the first data connection line in a second area”, Applicant has provided on page 12 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered but it is not fully persuasive. See the above response to the drawing objection. Therefore, this rejection is proper and maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features, “wherein the second readout connection line overlaps with at least one of the first data connection line in a first area” in lines 17-18 of claim 1 and lines 3-4 of claim 13 and “wherein the second data connection line overlaps with at least one of the first data connection line in a second area” in lines 6-8 of claim 6 and lines 7-8 of claim 18, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Since some U.S. applications are not correctly translated from the foreign applications due to, e.g., incorrect gramma, missed punctuations, and etc., it is in the best interest of the patent community that applicant, in his/her normal review and/or rewriting of the disclosure, especially claims and, to take into consideration these editorial situations and make changes as necessary, in order to avoid at least unnecessary 112 issue(s).
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 1-10 and 13-20 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 the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Note that the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc. (358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) and of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in Ex parte Jung (Appeal No. 2016-008290 (PTAB March 22, 2017)) are frequently cited for guidance on the use of conjunctive and disjunctive claim language. In SuperGuide, the Federal Circuit found that the meaning of “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B.” By contrast, the meaning of “at least one of A or B” would require A or B, but not both. Therefore, the phrase “at least one of A or B” typically means “at least one of A or at least one of B.” This interpretation is based on the plain meaning of the phrase, which is generally conjunctive unless the context suggests otherwise. Further, note that the specification is not the measure of invention and limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims. Therefore, when drafting and amending claims in a patent application, the use of the conjunctive “and” or the disjunctive “or” should be carefully considered, as each word of a claim can affect its interpretation and the ultimate validity of the patent. In particular, in claims reciting a selection from a list of elements that follows the phrase “at least one of,” one should consider how to encompass the claim scope intended.
As per claim 1, this claim recites limitations, “wherein the second readout connection line overlaps with at least one of the data line or the first data connection line in a first area, and wherein the first electrode pattern is located between at least one of the data line or the first data connection line and the second readout connection line in the first area” in last 5 lines. The above underlined limitations include “at least one of the data line or the first data connection line,” which can be broadly construed as “at least one of the data line or at least one of the first data connection line.” Since it is unclear whether “at least one of the data line” is meant “one or more data lines,” “at least one part of a plurality of parts of the data line,” or other, it is considered that the invention is not clearly defined. Further, since it is unclear whether “at least one of the first data connection line” is meant “one or more first data connection lines,” “at least one part of a plurality of parts of the first data connection line,” or other, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
As per claims 2-10, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
In addition to claims 6-8, these claims further recite limitations, “the second data connection line overlaps with at least one of the data line or the first data connection line in a second area, and wherein the second electrode pattern is located between at least one of the data line or the first data connection line and the second data connection line in the second area” in last 6 lines of claim 6. The above underlined limitations include “at least one of the data line or the first data connection line,” which can be broadly construed as “at least one of the data line or at least one of the first data connection line.” Since it is unclear whether “at least one of the data line” is meant “one or more data lines,” “at least one part of a plurality of parts of the data line,” or other, it is considered that the invention is not clearly defined. Further, since it is unclear whether “at least one of the first data connection line” is meant “one or more first data connection lines,” “at least one part of a plurality of parts of the first data connection line,” or other, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
As per claims 13-20, see the rejection of claim 1 for similar limitations recited in claim 13.
In addition to claims 18-20, see the rejection of claim 6 for similar limitations recited in claim 18.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claim, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
As per claim 1, this claim recites a limitation, “a light-emitting element configured to emit light having a luminance based on the data voltage” in lines 3-4, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 3 and the corresponding specification at least ¶¶ 81, 93, 111, discloses a light-emitting element LD directly connected to the node N4 to receive a voltage at the node N4 (see at least Fig. 3; ¶ 93; note that the voltage at the node N4 is not the same as the data voltage from the data line DL,) and configured to receive an amount of driving current, that flows through the first electrode and the second electrode of the first pixel transistor ST1 and is adjusted according to the voltage maintained in the storage capacitor Cst, and to emit light having a luminance corresponding to the amount of driving current (see Fig. 3; ¶ 111.)
Further, a person having ordinary skill in the electronic/display art would have readily recognized that a voltage flowing through at least one or more elements is not the same as a voltage at the last element of the at least one or more elements. In the instant case, as shown in Fig. 3, since the data line DL is indirectly coupled to the light-emitting element LD through many elements [ST2, N2, ST1, N3, ST6, N4], the voltage received at the light-emitting element LD can’t be same at the data voltage from the data line DL due to at least the processing delay time of each element and the addition and/or subtraction to the data voltage from the elements, i.e., the light-emitting element LD can’t emit light based on the data voltage or based on only the data voltage from a data line, as required by the above underlined limitation.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 1, this claim further recites a limitation, “wherein the second readout connection line overlaps with at least one of the first data connection line in a first area” in lines 17-18, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 6A, discloses the second readout connection line [BRSH1] overlapping with the data line [SL2/ DL] in a first area [BRSA1], but not overlapping with one or more first data connection line(s) [BRSV2] in the first area [BRSA1], as required by the above underlined limitation. Note that Fig. 6A shows one or more first data connection line(s) [BRSV2] only in the second area [BRSA2]. Also, see the above drawing objection. However, the original disclosure, including the original claim, does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to the above underlined limitation, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Also, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 2-10, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
In addition to claims 6-8, these claims further recite a limitation, “wherein the second data connection line overlaps with at least one of the first data connection line in a second area” in lines 6-8 of claim 6, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 6A, discloses the second data connection line [BRSH2] overlapping with the data line in a second area [BRSA2], but not overlapping with one or more first data connection line(s) [BRSV2] in the second area [BRSA2], as required by the above underlined limitation. Also, see the above drawing objection. However, the original disclosure, including the original claim, does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to the above underlined limitation, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Also, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 11, see the rejection of claim 1 for similar limitations.
As per claims 12-20, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 11 above.
In addition to claims 13-20, see the rejection of claim 1 for similar limitations recited in claim 13.
In addition to claims 18-20, see the rejection of claim 6 for similar limitation recited in claim 18.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights