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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 2021/0134926 A1; hereinafter Song).
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a display device (Fig. 12; Title of Song) comprising:
a display area (area within “AA” boundaries that contains emitting portions EA, ¶ 0138) comprising a plurality of pixels (a single pixel corresponding to one emitting portion EA and the up to 2 transmissive portions TA to the right and/or left of the emitting portion EA within the same sub-pixel line SPL, ¶¶ 0138-0141) arranged in a first direction (“First direction” in Fig. 12) and a second direction (“second direction”) intersecting the first direction, each of the pixels comprising:
light-emitting area groups (“emitting portions EA” in ¶ 0141) and non-light-emitting areas (“transmissive portions TA”, ¶ 0138) disposed adjacent to the light-emitting area groups (see Fig. 12); and
a non-display area (combination of all the transmissive areas TA).
Song discloses that the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups continuously arranged along the first direction is irregular (¶ 0149) but does not explicitly set forth a specific example in which the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially increases for first pixels of the plurality of pixels and sequentially decreases for second pixels of the plurality of pixels neighboring the first pixels repeatedly (i.e., that there exists a minimum of six adjacent pixels P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, along the first direction wherein the distance between two adjacent pixels, the distance between Px and immediately adjacent Py being indicated as indicated as DXY, is such that D12 < D23 < D34 > D45 > D56).
However, Song discloses “11 candidates” (¶¶ 0100-0103) for how the transmissive areas within the individual pixels may be arranged so that the distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially arranged are not equal (i.e., the minimum distance increases or decreases) so as not to cause a diffraction grating with the transmissive areas.
As such, before the Application’s effective filing date, there was a recognized need in the art to arrange the transmissive portions such that the distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially arranged are not equal. Further, with the candidates set forth by Song, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to this recognized need. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date could have pursued these known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Among these finite number or predictable solutions are multiple in which, somewhere along the lines of pixels, there exists six adjacent pixels P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, along the first direction wherein the distance between two adjacent pixels is such that D12 < D23 < D34 > D45 > D56. As such, choosing one of these configurations, which satisfies the claimed limitation, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was filed (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)),
and there are transmissive areas TA between the first pixels and second pixels.
Regarding claim 2, Song discloses the display device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Song further discloses an (n-2)th, an (n-1)th, and an (nth) pixel (corresponding to P3, P2, and P1 as set forth above, respectively) wherein a wherein a minimum distance between the light-emitting area group of the (n-1)th pixel of the display device and the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the display device (i.e., D23) is greater than a minimum distance between the light-emitting area group of the
(n-2)th pixel of the display device and the light-emitting area group of the (n-1)th pixel of the display device (D12) (D12 < D23 as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 3, Song discloses the display device of claim 2, as discussed above.
Song further discloses that the various widths of the transmissive areas area represented as factors of ten (¶ 0100). Song further discloses the difference between the width of each pixel in the first direction is equal to the sum of 1) the width of each light-emitting area group and 2) the sum of the non-light-emitting area groups TA within that pixel. As such, the difference between the width of each pixel in the first direction and the width of each light-emitting area group (which Applicant labels as the variable (b-a)) is equal to the sum of the non-light-emitting area groups TA within a pixel, which Song denotes as equal to 100 arbitrary units (¶ 0100).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, choosing values for the widths of the transmissive areas would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, such as an example in which D12 is, for instance, 50 of Song’s arbitrary units and D23- is, for instance, 60. In such an exemplary configuration, it is easily seen that the display device of Song satisfies the Applicant’s equation for the minimum distance lk between the light-emitting area groups of the (n-2)th pixel, the (n-1)th pixel and the nth pixel of the display device in that the minimum distance, lk, between the (n-2)th and the (n-1)th pixel is:
lk = D23 = 60 = 100*t*r^2 (using k = 2) and
the minimum distance, lk, between the (n-1)th pixel and the nth pixel is:
lk = D12 = 50 = 100*t*r^1 (using k = 1).
Solving for r and t yields r = 6/5 and t = 5/12 which are rational numbers within the claimed ranges. The examiner notes that myriad other choices for the specific values of D12 and D23- would also yield results within the claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 2021/0134926 A1; hereinafter Song) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2019/0370524 A1; hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 7, Song discloses the display device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Song further discloses a high-density pixel area (see annotated copy of Fig. 12, below. The Examiner notes that the boundaries of a “pixel area” are not limited and, therefore, may be arbitrarily assigned so long as it is an area which comprises pixels) having a first density of pixels (100% as it only comprises pixels) of the plurality of pixels; and
a low-density pixel area (see annotated copy of Fig. 12, below) having a second density of pixels (less than 100% as it also comprises non-pixel portions) of the plurality of pixels less than the first density of the high-density pixel area.
Song does not disclose a sensor as claimed.
Ma, in the same field of endeavor, discloses placing a sensor (“fingerprint recognition module 14” in Fig. 1, ¶ 0033) under the display area (“light-emitting function layer 13”, ¶ 0032).
There was a benefit to including such a sensor in that it allows the display to be accessed by biometrics (e.g., the fingerprint of the owner).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to include a sensor as taught by Ma disposed under the display area of Song for this benefit.
As Ma discloses that the sensor is formed beneath the entire display area (see Fig. 1 of Ma), in the resulting configuration the sensor will overlap the low-density pixel area in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Song and Ma discloses the display device of claim 7, as discussed above.
The combination of Song and Ma will further have a minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups of the pixels disposed in the low-density pixel area overlapping the sensor increase and decrease repeatedly (as the low-density area includes an entire line of pixels, the minimum distance will increase and decrease repeatedly in the same manner as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Song and Ma discloses the display device of claim 8, as discussed above.
The combination of Song and Ma further uses a sensor comprising a FOD (“fingerprint recognition module 14”, ¶ 0033 of Ma, which is a Finger On Display sensor (FOD) as it senses the ridges of a finger on the display as shown in Fig. 1 of Ma).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 2021/0134926 A1; hereinafter Song) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0013594 A1; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 10, Song discloses the display device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Song does not disclose that each of light-emitting area groups comprise areas which emit red, green, and blue lights as claimed.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a display device with light-emitting area groups (“subpixel region 4331” in Fig. 1, ¶ 0058) comprising a first light-emitting area (“subpixel 4333”, ¶ 0058) which emits red light (“red”, ¶ 0058), a second light-emitting area (“subpixel 4335”, ¶ 0058) which emits a green light (“green”, ¶ 0058), a third light-emitting area (“subpixel 4337”, ¶ 0058) which emits blue light (“blue”, ¶ 0058), and a non-light-emitting area (unlabeled region in Fig. 1 between the aforementioned light-emitting areas) disposed between adjacent ones of the light-emitting areas.
There was a benefit to have each light-emitting area group comprise three light-emitting areas emitting red, green, and blue in that light-emitting areas in each pixel can be individually controlled to produce entire gamut of color as red, green, and blue are primary colors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to each light-emitting area group of Song to include the three light-emitting areas and non-light-emitting area of Wang for this benefit.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Song and Wang discloses the display device of claim 10, as discussed above.
As the pitch of the second light-emitting areas of adjacent ones of the plurality of pixels is constant (see Fig. 1 of Wang), in the device of the combination, the pitch of the second light-emitting areas of adjacent ones of the corresponding plurality of pixels along the second direction in Fig. 12 of Song will be maintained which has an improved visibility as compared to non-uniformly distributed light-emitting areas.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Song and Wang discloses the display device of claim 10, as discussed above.
Song further discloses using inorganic light-emitting elements for the light-emitting areas (“inorganic light emitting diode” in ¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Song and Wang discloses the display device of claim 10, as discussed above.
Song further discloses the light-emitting area groups comprise transistor areas (“thin film transistor layer 230” in Fig. 2, ¶ 0052) in which transistors connected to the plurality of pixels are disposed (¶ 0052), and
wherein a minimum distance between the transistor areas of the plurality of pixels is maintained (as the transistor areas are coextensive with the light emitting portion of the pixel as seen in Fig. 2 of Song and the light emitting portions are continuous along the second direction as seen in Fig. 12 of Song, the transistor areas will, therefore, also be continuous along the second direction with a constant minimum distance therebetween of 0).
Claim(s) 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2019/0250450 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 2019/0370524 A1; hereinafter Ma) and Song (US 2021/0134926 A1; hereinafter Song).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses a display device (Fig. 4; Title of Li).
The specific structure shown in Fig. 4 only shows 7 rows and 5 columns of pixels.
Ma, in the same field of endeavor, discloses display devices may comprise hundreds of rows and columns of pixels (Table 1 on Page 4 of Ma discloses a device resolution of 1080*2160).
There was benefit to increasing the number of rows and columns of pixels in a display device in that is increase the clarity of a produced image.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use several additional rows of pixels as taught by Ma in the display device of Li for this benefit.
In such a resulting configuration, the display device would look like the exemplary rendering of Li in view of Ma, below.
As seen in the rendering, the display device of the combination comprises a first display device (the Examiner notes that the indicated sub-collections of pixels can be considered display devices as the pixels between devices can be independently controlled);
a second display device (see rendering, below) on one side of the first display device; and
a sealing member (“substrate 30” in Fig. 14, ¶ 0107, which acts as a seal for the transistor structure “T”) disposed between the first display device and the second display device (as the substrate extends along the entirety of the overall display device, it exists in the regions between the identified individual display devices in the rendering below) and coupling the first display device with the second display device (as both the first and second display devices are formed using the same substrate), each of the first display device and the second display device comprising:
a display area (consisting of the light emitting portions of the pixels within the display area box seen in the rendering, below) comprising a plurality of pixels (“display regions 20”, ¶ 0056) arranged in a first direction (X direction) and a second direction (Y direction) intersecting the first direction, each of the plurality of pixels comprising:
light-emitting area groups (“non-transmissive region 200”, ¶ 0107) and non-light-emitting areas (“first light transmissive region 201” and “second light transmissive region 202” in the rendering, below, ¶ 0109 of Li); and
a non-display area (remaining portion of each individual display device which includes the transmissive regions TA) surrounding the display area (see rendering, below).
Fig. 4 of Li shows the minimum distance between adjacent one of the light-emitting area groups continuously arranged along the first direction superincreasing and does not set forth a specific example in which the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially increases for first pixels of the plurality of pixels and sequentially decreases for second pixels of the plurality of pixels neighboring the first pixels repeatedly.
Song, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups continuously arranged along the first direction is irregular (¶ 0149) but does not explicitly set forth a specific example in which the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially increases for first pixels of the plurality of pixels and sequentially decreases for second pixels of the plurality of pixels neighboring the first pixels repeatedly (i.e., that there exists a minimum of six adjacent pixels P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, along the first direction wherein the distance between two adjacent pixels, the distance between Px and immediately adjacent Py being indicated as indicated as DXY, is such that D12 < D23 < D34 > D45 > D56).
However, Song discloses “11 candidates” (¶¶ 0100-0103) for how the transmissive areas within the individual pixels may be arranged so that the distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially arranged are not equal (i.e., the minimum distance increases or decreases) so as not to cause a diffraction grating with the transmissive areas.
As such, before the Application’s effective filing date, there was a recognized need in the art to arrange the transmissive portions such that the distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially arranged are not equal. Further, with the candidates set forth by Song, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to this recognized need. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date could have pursued these known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Among these finite number or predictable solutions are multiple in which, somewhere along the lines of pixels, there exists six adjacent pixels P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, along the first direction wherein the distance between two adjacent pixels is such that D12 < D23 < D34 > D45 > D56. As such, choosing one of these configurations, which satisfies the claimed limitation, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was filed (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
The was a benefit to increasing and decreasing the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups in that it allows for the average density of pixels across larger areas of the display device to be more uniform which corresponds to a more uniform image (i.e., if the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups was superincreasing from left to right in a display device, the left half of the display device would containing significantly more pixels than the right half as the right half would have more non-light emitting space between light-emitting area groups).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the light-emitting area groups in the device of the combination of Li in view of Ma such that the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially increases for first pixels of the plurality of pixels and sequentially decreases for second pixels of the plurality of pixels neighboring the first pixels repeatedly for this benefit,
and the non-display area is between the first pixels and the second pixels.
PNG
media_image2.png
1080
1234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Li, Ma, and Song discloses the display device of claim 14, as discussed above.
Further, as Li discloses that the variation in minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups varies continuously along the first direction (see Fig. 4 of Li), in the device of the combination in which the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups increases and decreases repeatedly the variation in minimum distance will also be along the first direction.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Li, Ma, and Song discloses the display device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Further, as the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups increases and decreases repeatedly in each of the first and second display devices, there will be three consecutive light-emitting area groups along the first direction in the first display device in which the minimum distance between the 2nd and 3rd is an increase over the minimum distance between the 1st and 2nd and also three consecutive light-emitting area groups along the first direction in the second display device in the same row in which the minimum distance between the 2nd and 3rd is a decrease over the minimum distance between the 1st and 2nd (see rendering below).
PNG
media_image3.png
487
893
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As seen in the rendering the plurality of pixels in the first display device comprises an (n-2)th pixel, an (n-1)th pixel adjacent to one side of the (n-2)th pixel in the first direction, and an nth pixel adjacent to one side of the (n-1)th pixel in the first direction,
wherein the plurality of pixels of the second display device comprises an nth pixel adjacent to one side of the nth pixel of the first display device (in the sense that it is closer than the (n-1)th and (n-2)th pixels) in the first direction, and
wherein a minimum distance between the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the first display device and the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the second display device is greater than a minimum distance between the light-emitting area group of the (n-2th) pixel of the first display device and the light-emitting area group of the (n-1)th pixel of the first display device (see rendering above), and a minimum distance between the light-emitting area group of the (n-1)th pixel of the first display device and the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the first display device (see rendering), wherein n is equal to or greater than 3.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Li, Ma, and Song discloses the display device of claim 16, as discussed above.
Further, as seen in the rendering in the rejection of claim 16, the nth pixel of the first display device is spaced apart from the nth pixel of the second display device with the sealing member therebetween (as the substrate extends along the entirety of the overall display device).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Li, Ma, and Song discloses the display device of claim 17, as discussed above.
Further, the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups of the (n-2)th pixel, the (n-1)th pixel and the nth pixel of the first display device and the minimum distance between the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the first display device and the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the second display device have a relationship of an arithmetic sequence (let the minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups of the (n-2)th pixel and the (n-1)th pixel be equal to X; the minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups of the (n-1)th pixel and the nth pixel be equal to Y, and the minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups of the two nth pixels be Z; then:
the minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups of the (n-2)th pixel and the (n-1)th pixel = the minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups of the two nth pixels * X /Z
and the minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups of the (n-1)th pixel and the nth pixel = the minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups of the two nth pixels * Y /Z;
and these two relationships are arithmetic sequences.)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Li, Ma, and Song discloses the display device of claim 18, as discussed above.
Song does not explicitly disclose an example in which the layout is symmetric.
Ma, in the same field of endeavor, discloses varying the minimum distances between adjacent light-emitting area groups to be symmetric about a central axis (see Fig. 7 of Ma).
There was a benefit to varying the minimum distances between adjacent light-emitting area groups to be symmetric about a central axis in that it increases uniformity between the left and right halves of the display device which increases the uniformity of the resulting image quality.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to vary the minimum distances between adjacent light-emitting area groups to be symmetric about a central axis in the device of the combination for this benefit.
In the resulting structure, taking the sealing member to be that portion of the substrate along the central axis of the display device, the layout of the (n-2)th pixel, the (n-1)th pixel and the nth pixel of the first display device will, therefore, be symmetrical to a layout of the (n-2)th pixel, the (n-1)th pixel and the nth pixel of the second display device with respect to the sealing member.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Li, Ma, and Song discloses the display device of claim 16, as discussed above.
Song further discloses that a margin between the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the first display device and the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the second display device is obtainable as the minimum distance between the light-emitting area groups arranged continuously along the first direction of the first and second display devices increases and decreases repeatedly (as Song discloses that the minimum distances between adjacent light-emitting area groups are selected independently (“randomly selected”, ¶ 0103) the margin between the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the first display device and the light-emitting area group of the nth pixel of the second display device can be obtained prior to selection of the minimum distances between the remaining adjacent light-emitting area groups in either the first or second display device).
Alternatively regarding claim 14, Li discloses a display device (Fig. 4; Title of Li).
The specific structure shown in Fig. 4 only shows 7 rows of pixels.
Ma, in the same field of endeavor, discloses display devices may comprise hundreds of rows of pixels (Table 1 on Page 4 of Ma discloses a device resolution of 1080*2160).
There was benefit to increasing the number of rows of pixels in a display device in that is increase the clarity of a produced image.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use several additional rows of pixels as taught by Ma in the display device of Li for this benefit.
In the resulting configuration, the display device would look like the rendering of Li in view of Ma, below.
As seen in the rendering, the display device of the combination comprises a first display device (the Examiner notes that the indicated sub-collections of pixels can be considered display devices as the pixels between devices can be independently controlled);
a second display device (see rendering, below) on one side of the first display device; and
a sealing member (“substrate 30” in Fig. 14, ¶ 0107, which acts as a seal for the transistor structure “T”) disposed between the first display device and the second display device (as the substrate extends along the entirety of the overall display device, it exists in the regions between the identified individual display devices in the rendering below) and coupling the first display device with the second display device (as both the first and second display devices are formed using the same substrate), each of the first display device and the second display device comprising:
a display area (consisting of the light emitting portions of the pixels within the display area box seen in the rendering, below) comprising a plurality of pixels (“display regions 20”, ¶ 0056) arranged in a first direction (X direction) and a second direction (Y direction) intersecting the first direction, each of the plurality of pixels comprising:
light-emitting area groups (“non-transmissive region 200”, ¶ 0107) and non-light-emitting areas (“first light transmissive region 201” and “second light transmissive region 202” in the rendering, below, ¶ 0109 of Li); and
a non-display area (remaining portion of each individual display device which includes the transmissive areas TA) surrounding the display area (see rendering, below).
Fig. 4 of Li shows the minimum distance between adjacent one of the light-emitting area groups continuously arranged along the first direction superincreasing and does not set forth a specific example in which the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially increases for first pixels of the plurality of pixels and sequentially decreases for second pixels of the plurality of pixels neighboring the first pixels repeatedly.
Song, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups continuously arranged along the first direction is irregular (¶ 0149) but does not explicitly set forth a specific example in which the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially increases for first pixels of the plurality of pixels and sequentially decreases for second pixels of the plurality of pixels neighboring the first pixels repeatedly (i.e., that there exists a minimum of six adjacent pixels P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, along the first direction wherein the distance between two adjacent pixels, the distance between Px and immediately adjacent Py being indicated as indicated as DXY, is such that D12 < D23 < D34 > D45 > D56).
However, Song discloses “11 candidates” (¶¶ 0100-0103) for how the transmissive areas within the individual pixels may be arranged so that the distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially arranged are not equal (i.e., the minimum distance increases or decreases) so as not to cause a diffraction grating with the transmissive areas.
As such, before the Application’s effective filing date, there was a recognized need in the art to arrange the transmissive portions such that the distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially arranged are not equal. Further, with the candidates set forth by Song, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to this recognized need. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date could have pursued these known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Among these finite number or predictable solutions are multiple in which, somewhere along the lines of pixels, there exists six adjacent pixels P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, along the first direction wherein the distance between two adjacent pixels is such that D12 < D23 < D34 > D45 > D56. As such, choosing one of these configurations, which satisfies the claimed limitation, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was filed (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
The was a benefit to increasing and decreasing the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups in that it allows for the average density of pixels across larger areas of the display device to be more uniform which corresponds to a more uniform image (i.e., if the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups was superincreasing from left to right in a display device, the left half of the display device would containing significantly more pixels than the right half as the right half would have more non-light emitting space between light-emitting area groups).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the light-emitting area groups in the device of the combination of Li in view of Ma such that the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups sequentially increases for first pixels of the plurality of pixels and sequentially decreases for second pixels of the plurality of pixels neighboring the first pixels repeatedly for this benefit,
and the non-display area is between the first pixels and the second pixels.
PNG
media_image4.png
1080
792
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Li, Ma, and Song discloses the display device of claim 14, as discussed in the alternative rejection of claim 14, above.
The combination further yields a third display device (see rendering in the alternative rejection of claim 14, above) disposed on an opposite side of the first display device; and
a fourth display device (see rendering in the alternative rejection of claim 14, above) disposed on an opposite side of the second display device, each of the third display device and the fourth display device comprising:
a display area (see rendering in the alternative rejection of claim 14, above) comprising a plurality of pixels arranged in a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction, each of the plurality of pixels comprising:
light-emitting area groups (“non-transmissive region 200”, ¶ 0107) and non light-emitting areas (“first light transmissive region 201” and “second light transmissive region 202” in the rendering, below, ¶ 0109 of Li); and
a non-display area (remaining portion of each individual display device) surrounding the display area (see rendering, below);
wherein the sealing member is further disposed between the first display device and the third display device, between the second display device and the fourth display device, and between the third display device and the fourth display device (as the substrate extends along the entirety of the overall display device, it exists in the regions between the identified individual display devices in the rendering above),
wherein a minimum distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting area groups continuously arranged along the first direction or the second direction increases and decreases repeatedly (as they are identical to the first and second display devices),
wherein a layout of the light-emitting area groups of the first display device and a layout of the light-emitting area groups of the fourth display device are symmetrical to each other (see rendering, above), and
wherein a layout of the light-emitting area groups of the second display device and a layout of the light-emitting area groups of the third display device are symmetrical to each other (see rendering, above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks regarding the position of the non-display area relative to the first and second pixels have been considered. In light of the Amendments filed 9/26/2025, the display and non-display areas of Song have been remapped to account for this newly added limitation, as discussed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815