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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (pub # 20190266953) in view of Wang et al (pub #2023015708).
Consider claim 1. Lee et al teaches A display device, (abstract). comprising:
a first transistor over the substrate and connected to a first power line; (Fig. 2 and paragraph 0050, first transistor M1 connected to first power supply line PL1).
a second transistor over the substrate and connected to a second power line; (Fig. 2, transistor M3 connected to second power supply line PL2 through node N3).
a light-emitting element connected to the first transistor and the second transistor; (Fig. 2, OLED connected to M1 and M3 through node N3).
and a connection element connected to the first power line and the light-emitting element, (Fig. 2, Coled connected to OLED and PL1 through node N3).
Lee et al does not specifically disclose a substrate; wherein the connection element overlaps at least a part of the first transistor.
In an analogous art Wang et al teaches a substrate; (paragraph 0038, display panel comprising a base substrate).
wherein the connection element overlaps at least a part of the first transistor. (Fig. 5, connection portion CP2 overlaps a portion of transistor T6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wang et al with the invention of Lee et al in order to reduce the coupling effect and alleviating the longitudinal crosstalk (Wang et al paragraph 0131).
Consider claim 2. Lee et al further teaches The display device of claim 1, wherein the connection element includes a first electrode and a second electrode, and wherein the first electrode of the connection element is connected to the first power line, (Fig. 2, first electrode of Coled connected to PL1 through node N3).
and the second electrode of the connection element is connected to a cathode of the light-emitting element. (Fig. 2, second electrode of Coled connected to cathode of OLED).
Consider claim 3. Lee et al further teaches The display device of claim 2, wherein a drain of the first transistor is connected to the first power line, (Fig. 2, drain of M1 connected to PL1).
and a source of the first transistor is connected to an anode of the light-emitting element, (Fig. 2, source of M1 connected to OLED).
and wherein a drain of the second transistor is connected to the cathode of the light-emitting element, and a source of the second transistor is connected to the second power line. (Fig. 2).
Consider claim 4. Lee et al further teaches The display device of claim 2, wherein the first electrode is electrically connected to a drain of the first transistor, and the second electrode is electrically connected to a drain of the second transistor. (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (pub # 20190266953) in view of Wang et al (pub #2023015708) and further in view of Lee (pub # 20220415977).
Consider claim 8. Lee et al in view of Wang et al does not specifically disclose The display device of claim 2, further comprising a reflection electrode between the first transistor and the light-emitting element, wherein the first electrode includes a same material and is disposed on a same layer as the reflection electrode. However Lee in at least paragraphs 0087 and 0088 and figs. 3A and 3B discloses a display device comprising a reflective partition wall. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reflective partition wall with the display device of Lee et al in view of Wang et al in order to increase reflectivity and increase contrast (Lee paragraph 0088).
Consider claim 10. Lee et al in view of Wang et al does not specifically disclose The display device of claim 1, further comprising an overcoat layer between the first and second transistors and the connection element. However Lee in at least paragraph 0107 discloses an anisotropic conductive film may be coated on the display substrate. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the overcoat layer of Lee with the display device of Lee et al in view of Wang et al in order to dramatically improve reliability while maintaining the advantages of organic light-emitting diodes (Lee paragraph 0023).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 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.
Consider claim 5. The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious “The display device of claim 2, wherein the connection element further includes a first semiconductor layer and a second semiconductor layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, and wherein one of the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer is an n-type semiconductor layer and another of the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer is a p-type semiconductor layer.”
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to due to their dependency from claim 5.
Consider claim 9. The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious “The display device of claim 8, further comprising: a first contact electrode connected to a first element electrode of the light-emitting element; and a second contact electrode connected to a second element electrode of the light-emitting element, wherein the second electrode includes a same material and is disposed on a same layer as the first contact electrode and the second contact electrode.”
Consider claim 11. The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious “The display device of claim 1, further comprising: a third transistor switched according to a gate signal and transmitting a data voltage to a first node; a fourth transistor switched according to the gate signal and transmitting a reference voltage to a second node or transmitting a voltage of the second node to a reference line; and a capacitor connected to the first node and the second node, wherein the first transistor is connected to the first node and the second node, and the light-emitting element is connected to the second node.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAYCE R BIBBEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00-6:00.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/CHAYCE R BIBBEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights