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 papers filed on 11/18/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
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 data line and the first data connection line are connected to each other at a same electrical node” in lines 14-15 of claim 1 and lines 13-14 of claim 11, “wherein the second readout connection line overlaps with at least one of the first data connection line in a first area” in lines 16-17 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: both “closet” in line 2 and line 4 should be changed to -- closest -- because of a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: both “closet” in line 15 and line 17 should be changed to -- closest -- because of a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 receive a data voltage from a data line, and emit light having a luminance based on the data voltage” in lines 2-3, 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.) However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail the light-emitting element LD directly connected to the data line DL in order to receive a data voltage from the data line and emitting light having a luminance based on the data voltage, as required by the above underlined limitation.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, this claim itself does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to the above underlined limitations, 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.
Further, note that 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, i.e., the light-emitting element LD can’t receive a 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 data line and the first data connection line are connected to each other at a same electrical node” in lines 14-15, 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 data line [SL2] and the second data connection line [BRSH2] connected to each other at a same electrical node and the second data connection line [BRSH2] and the first data connection line [BRSV2] connected to each other at a same electrical node. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose in detail the above underlined limitation. Also, see the above drawing objection.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, this claim itself 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.
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 16-17, 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.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, this claim itself 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.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, this claim itself 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cha et al. (US 2022/0336561 A1) discloses a related display device [DD] (see at least Figs. 1, 3) comprising: a plurality of data lines [DL1-DLm; Fig. 3]; a plurality of readout lines RL1-RLm; Fig. 3]; a pixel [PX; Fig. 3] comprising a light-emitting element [ED] directly connected to the node between the elements [T6, T7] to receive at the node a voltage and/or an amount of driving current, that flows through the first electrode and the second electrode of the first/driving transistor T1 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 at least Figs. 5-6 and the corresponding description, at least ¶¶ 104-105;) an optical sensor [FX; Fig. 3] comprising a light-receiving element [OPD], and configured to provide a sensing current generated based on an amount of light received by the light-receiving element to a readout line [RL] (see at least Figs. 5-6 and the corresponding description, at least ¶ 114.) Park et al. (US 2021/0376036 A1) discloses a related display device [10] (see at least Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of data lines [DL; Figs. 1, 4A, 4B]; a pixel [PX; Figs. 1, 3] comprising a light-emitting element [OLED; Fig. 3] directly connected to the node between the elements [T6, T7] to receive at the node a voltage and/or an amount of driving current, that flows through the first electrode and the second electrode of the first/driving transistor T1 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 at least Fig. 3 and the corresponding description, at least ¶ 79;) a plurality of first connection lines [410] extending in a first/vertical direction [DR1] and comprising a first data connection line [410-1/410-2] (see at least Fig. 4A;) and a plurality of second connection lines [420] extending in a second/horizontal direction [DR2] different from the first direction [DR1] and comprising a second data connection line [420] (see at least Fig. 4A,) wherein the data line [DL2] and the first data connection line [410-2] are connected to each other at a same electrical node (see at least Fig. 4A.)
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