Patent Application 17759996 - DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE - Rejection
Patent Application 17759996 - DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
Title: DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
Application Information
- Invention Title: DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
- Application Number: 17759996
- Submission Date: 2025-04-09T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-08-02T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-08-02T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 257
- National Sub-Class: 059000
- Examiner Employee Number: 100436
- Art Unit: 2812
- Tech Center: 2800
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 3
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/18/2023 and 1/08/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: data lines 100. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para 0070: There is mention of “data lines 100”. Data lines 100 are not in the drawings
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katoh et al (WO 2012169466 A1). Katoh et al will be referenced to as Katoh henceforth.
Regarding Claim 1, Katoh teaches:
“(Original) A display substrate, comprising a base substrate (10, pg. 7, pg. 13, FIG. 20)
a plurality of data lines (SLR, SLG, SLB, pg. 8, FIG. 20) arranged on the base substrate and extending in a first direction (FIG. 20), and a plurality of gate lines (GL(m-1), GL(m), pg. 8, FIG. 20 ) arranged on the base substrate and extending in a second direction (FIG. 20), wherein the plurality of data lines cross the plurality of gate lines to define a plurality of sub-pixels (FIG. 20), each sub-pixel at least comprises a first aperture region (Sp1, pg. 5, FIG. 20) and a second aperture region (Sp2, pg. 5, FIG. 20) spaced apart from each other in the first direction (FIG. 20), the second aperture region is offset in the second direction with respect to the first aperture region (FIG. 20), and an offset distance is less than or equal to a width of the first aperture region in the second direction (FIG. 20). ”
Regarding Claim 2, Katoh teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a minimum distance between two adjacent first aperture regions in the second direction is equal to the offset distance (pg. 5, FIG. 20).”
Regarding Claim 3, Katoh teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein in a same sub-pixel, the first aperture region and the second aperture region share a same switch element (12, pg. 8, FIG. 20), share a same data line as a signal input line (pg. 8: SLR, SLG, SLG correspond to subpixels R, G and B.), and share a same gate line as a switch control line of the switch element (pg. 8: the mth pixel belongs to the mth row and therefore to the mth switch control.).”
Regarding Claim 4, Katoh teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 3, wherein the gate line shared by the first aperture region and the second aperture region in the same sub-pixel is arranged between the first aperture region and the second aperture region;
or the gate line shared by the first aperture region and the second aperture region in the same sub-pixel is arranged at a side of the first aperture region away from the second aperture region;
or the gate line shared by the first aperture region and the second aperture region in the same sub-pixel is arranged at a side of the second aperture region away from the first aperture region (FIG. 20: the last or option).”
Regarding Claim 5, Katoh teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the data line is arranged in a non-aperture region of the sub-pixel in the form of a folded line (FIG. 20).”
Regarding Claim 11, Katoh teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 1, further comprising a common electrode layer (16, pg. 13, FIG. 20) arranged on the base substrate (pg. 9), wherein the common electrode layer is a light shielding conductive layer or a light transmitting conductive layer (pg. 8: The common electrode is conductive and must be light transmitting for light to escape the device as evidenced by the slits 11a.), the common electrode layer is provided with an aperture region (Sp1 and Sp2, FIG. 20), and the aperture region is configured to define the first aperture region and the second aperture region (FIG. 20).”
Regarding Claim 12, Katoh teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of pixel electrodes (11a and 11b, pg. 9, FIG. 20), and each sub-pixel is provided with a pixel electrode (pg. 9, FIG. 20).”
Regarding Claim 15, Katoh teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 3, wherein the switch element is arranged at a position where the gate line crosses the data line (FIG. 20).”
Regarding Claim 16, Katoh teaches:
“(Currently Amended) A display device comprising the display substrate according to (see claim 1 rejection.).”
Regarding Claim 17, Katoh teaches:
“(New) The display device according to claim 16, wherein a minimum distance between two adjacent first aperture regions in the second direction is equal to the offset distance (pg. 5, FIG. 2).”
Regarding Claim 18, Katoh teaches:
“(New) The display device according to claim 16, wherein in a same sub-pixel, the first aperture region and the second aperture region share a same switch element (12, pg. 8, FIG. 20), share a same data line as a signal input line (pg. 8: SLR, SLG, SLG correspond to subpixels R G and B.), and share a same gate line as a switch control line of the switch element (pg. 8: the mth pixel belongs to the mth row and therefore to the mth switch control.).”
Regarding Claim 19, Katoh teaches:
“(New) The display device according to claim 18, wherein the gate line shared by the first aperture region and the second aperture region in the same sub-pixel is arranged between the first aperture region and the second aperture region;
or the gate line shared by the first aperture region and the second aperture region in the same sub-pixel is arranged at a side of the first aperture region away from the second aperture region;
or the gate line shared by the first aperture region and the second aperture region in the same sub-pixel is arranged at a side of the second aperture region away from the first aperture region (FIG. 20: the last “or” option is met.).”
Regarding Claim 20, Katoh teaches:
“(New) The display device according to claim 16, wherein the data line is arranged in a non- aperture region of the sub-pixel in the form of a folded line (FIG. 20).”
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
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katoh as applied to claims 1-5, 11-12, and 15 -20 above, and further in view of Niioka et al (US 20150355472 A!). Niioka et al will be referenced to as Niioka henceforth.
Regarding Claim 6, Katoh teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 5, wherein the sub-pixel comprises a first side (annotated FIG. 20 #1) and a second side (annotated FIG. 20 #1) arranged opposite to each other (annotated FIG. 20 #1), the data line is arranged at the first side and the second side (annotated FIG. 20 #1), the data line comprises a plurality of first repeating units (FIG. 5) coupled to each other in sequence in the first direction (FIG. 5 and FIG. 20: The first repeating units are connected via data lines and are therefore coupled.), and each first repeating unit comprises: a first vertical line segment (annotated FIG. 20 #1) arranged at a first side of the first aperture region and extending in the first direction (annotated FIG. 20 #1), the first vertical line segment comprising a first end (annotated FIG. 20 #1) away from the second aperture region (annotated FIG. 20 #1) and a second end (annotated FIG. 20 #1) close to the second aperture region (annotated FIG. 20 #1);
a second vertical line segment (annotated FIG. 20 #1) arranged at a second side of the second aperture region and extending in the first direction (annotated FIG. 20 #1), the second vertical line segment comprising a third end (annotated FIG. 20 #1) close to the first aperture region and a fourth end away from the first aperture region (annotated FIG. 20 #1)”
Katoh doesn’t substantially teach:
An oblique line segment.
However, Niioka teaches:
“a first oblique line segment (Niioka: annotated FIG. 25 #1) coupled between the second end of the first vertical line segment and the third end of the second vertical line segment (Niioka: annotated FIG. 25 #2: Notice the X direction is the vertical direction in Katoh and is therefore the vertical direction in Niioka.), the first oblique line segment being angled relative to the first vertical line segment by a first angle (Niioka: annotated FIG. 25 #1);
and a second oblique line segment (Niioka: annotated FIG. 25 #1)) coupled to the first end of the first vertical line segment or the fourth end of the second vertical line segment (Niioka annotated FIG. 25 #1), the second oblique line segment being angled relative to the first vertical line segment by a second angle (Niioka: annotated FIG. 25 #1).”
PNG
media_image1.png
856
1315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 20 #1
PNG
media_image2.png
476
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 25 #1
PNG
media_image3.png
476
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 25 #2
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Katoh is modifiable in view of Niioka
because by including the data line geometry of Niioka in Katoh, one of ordinary skill in the art would gain the advantage of an improved aperture ratio (Niioka: para 0131). An improved aperture ratio entails more light exiting the display leading to a more efficient device.
Regarding Claim 7, Katoh/Niioka teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 6, wherein the first vertical line segment, the second vertical line segment, the first oblique line segment and the second oblique line segment are formed integrally (Niioka: para 0114, FIG. 25) and arranged at a same layer (Niioka: para 0025: The entire data line is formed on the upper layer.) and made of a same material (Niioka: para 0024, FIG. 25); or at least two of the first vertical line segment, the second vertical line segment, the first oblique line segment and the second oblique line segment are arranged at different layers and coupled to each other through a via hole.”
Claim 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katoh as applied to claim 1-5, 11-12, and 15-20 above, and further in view of Jiao et al (CN 102854683). Jiao et al will be referenced to as Jiao henceforth.
Regarding Claim 8, Katoh teaches:
“Original) The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the sub-pixel comprises a first side (annotated FIG. 20 #2) and a second side (annotated FIG. 20 #2) arranged opposite to each other (annotated FIG. 20 #2), the data line is arranged at the first side and the second side (annotated FIG. 20 #2), the data line comprises a plurality of second repeating units coupled to each other in sequence in the first direction (FIG. 5 and FIG. 20: The first repeating units are connected by data lines and are therefore coupled.), and each second repeating unit comprises: a third vertical line segment (annotated FIG. 20 #2) arranged at a first side or a second side of the first aperture region (annotated FIG. 20 #2), the third vertical line segment comprising a first end (annotated FIG. 20 #2) close to the second aperture region (annotated FIG. 20 #2) and a second end away from the second aperture region (annotated FIG. 20 #2);”
Katoh doesn’t substantially teach:
A transparent conductive line.
However, Jiao teaches:
“and a transparent conductive line (Jiao: 60, para 0072, FIG. 6), an orthogonal projection of the transparent conductive line onto the base substrate at least partially overlapping an orthogonal projection of the second aperture region onto the base substrate (Jiao: FIG. 6: if the data line of Jiao were to replace that of Katoh, the transparent conductive line would partially overlap the edge of Sp2.), the transparent conductive line being coupled to the first end of the third vertical line segment (Jiao: the first end of the third vertical line segment of Jiao is the top end of the lower segment 10, FIG. 6), and a length of the transparent conductive line in the first direction being greater than or equal to a length of the second aperture region in the first direction (Jiao: FIG. 6: The length of 60 is approximately that of the first aperture region in the first direction and therefore longer than the length of the second aperture region.).”
PNG
media_image4.png
856
1315
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 20 #2
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Katoh is modifiable in view of Jiao
because making the data line transparent allows for more light to exit the invention of Katoh allowing for a more efficient device.
Regarding Claim 9, Katoh/Jiao teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 8, wherein the transparent conductive line is arranged at a same layer and not made of a same material as the third vertical line segment;
or the transparent conductive line is arranged at a different layer and insulated from the third vertical line segment (Jiao: para 0010), and transparent conductive line is coupled to the third vertical line segment through a via hole (Jiao para 0056).”
Regarding Claim 10, Katoh/Jiao teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 9, wherein the third vertical line segment is a source/drain metal line (Jiao: 10 and 21, para 0056, FIG. 6), and the transparent conductive line is an indium tin oxide conductive line (Jiao: para 0045, FIGS. 4 and 6: 80 is made by ITO from para 0045. 80 and 60 are clearly made of the same material by FIG. 4. Therefore 60 may be made of ITO).”
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katoh as applied to claim 1-5, 11-12, and 15-20 above, and further in view of Koyoma (US 20180061866).
Regarding Claim 13, Katoh doesn’t substantively a transparent conductive electrode:
However, Koyoma teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 12, wherein the pixel electrode is a transparent conductive electrode (Koyoma: 7013, para 0261, para 0257, FIG 16C.), and the pixel electrode comprises: a first electrode block portion arranged in the first aperture region (Katoh: FIG. 20);
a second electrode block portion arranged in the second aperture region (Katoh: FIG. 20);
and a connection bridge portion (Katoh: annotated FIG. 20 #3) coupled between the first electrode block portion and the second electrode block portion (Katoh: annotated FIG. 20 #3).”
PNG
media_image5.png
483
1171
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 20 #3
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Katoh is modifiable in view of Koyoma
because including a transparent pixel electrode like that of Koyoma allows for more light to escape the display and therefore makes the display more efficient.
Regarding Claim 14, Katoh/Koyoma teaches:
“(Original) The display substrate according to claim 13, wherein a shape of the first electrode block portion matches a shape of a space surrounded by the data lines arranged at the first side and the second side of the first aperture region corresponding to the first electrode block portion (FIG. 20).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE XAVIER RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 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, William Partridge can be reached on (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ALEXANDRE X RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
