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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 resolves the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the previous rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 requires that “a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of the second color subpixel on the array substrate is an ellipse.” However, claim 1, from which claim 9 depends requires that “a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of each subpixel on the array substrate is a circle.” Therefore, it is unclear what shape is required of the orthographic projection of the first electrode of the second color subpixel as claim 1 requires it to be a circle while claim 9 requires it to be an ellipse. As such, it seems that claims 1 and 2 are drawn to different mutually exclusive embodiments. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language.
Further regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “a first pixel group”, “a second pixel group”, “a first direction”, “a second direction”, “a first color subpixel”, “a second color subpixel” and a “third color subpixel”. However, all of these terms have been recited in claim 1. Therefore, all of these terms lack proper antecedent basis and it is unclear whether the recitation of these structures starting with “a” instead of “the” are meant to be the same structures as that recited in claim 1 or different structures.
Claims 3-5 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 requires that “central points of first electrodes of the three subpixels in each of the pixel groups when connected by lines form a triangle, an arrangement structure of one of the pixel groups after being inverted by 180 degrees in a first direction is identical to an arrangement structure of the other one of the pixel groups in the pixel unit.” However, claim 1, from which claim 9 depends requires that “a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of each subpixel on the array substrate is a circle.” Therefore, it is unclear what formation is required by claim 6 as claim 6 is directed to embodiments shown in Applicant’s Figs. 5 and 6 while claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, is directed to an embodiment shown in Applicant’s Fig. 7. As such, it seems that claims 1 and 6 are drawn to different mutually exclusive embodiments. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language.
Further regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “a first direction”, “a second direction”, “one first color subpixel”, “one second color subpixel” and “one third color subpixel”. However, all of these terms have been recited in claim 1. Therefore, all of these terms lack proper antecedent basis and it is unclear whether the recitation of these structures starting with “a” instead of “the” are meant to be the same structures as that recited in claim 1 or different structures.
Claims 7 and 8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 requires that “a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of the second color subpixel on the array substrate is an octagon, and virtual extension lines of four sides of the octagon constitute a rectangle.” However, claim 1, from which claim 9 depends requires that “a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of each subpixel on the array substrate is a circle.” Therefore, it is unclear what shape is required of the orthographic projection of the first electrode of the second color subpixel as claim 1 requires it to be a circle while claim 9 requires it to be an octagon. As such, it seems that claims 1 and 9 are drawn to different mutually exclusive embodiments. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language.
Further regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “a first direction”, “a second direction”, “one first color subpixel”, “one second color subpixel” and “one third color subpixel”. However, all of these terms have been recited in claim 1. Therefore, all of these terms lack proper antecedent basis and it is unclear whether the recitation of these structures starting with “a” instead of “the” are meant to be the same structures as that recited in claim 1 or different structures.
Claims 10 and 11 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 6, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2022/0302221) hereinafter “Zhang” in view of Choi (US 2016/0124557) hereinafter “Choi”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 8 of Zhang teaches A light-transmitting display panel (Item 200), comprising: an array substrate (Item 210); and a light-emitting layer positioned on the array substrate, the light-emitting layer comprising a plurality of pixel units (Item 122a) each pixel unit of the plurality of pixel units comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (Items 124a) each having a first electrode (Paragraph 0034 anode), the first electrodes of the sub-pixels in the plurality of pixel units being arranged in a pattern, the plurality of first electrodes arranged in the pattern having a combination of graphic parameters and position parameters, the graphic parameters being shape parameters or size parameters (Where each anode will inherently have a graphic parameter [shape and size] and position parameter [coordinates]), and zero-order diffraction spot energy of the light- transmitting display panel and light transmission energy of the light-transmitting display panel, where a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of each subpixel on the array substrate is a circle.
Zhang does not teach where the zero-order diffraction spot energy of the light- transmitting display panel and the light transmission energy of the light-transmitting display panel satisfies the following relationship expression: Io/Ix ≥ 85% wherein Io represents the zero-order diffraction spot energy of the light-transmitting display panel, and Ix represents the light transmission energy of the light-transmitting display panel.
However Zhang teaches where the percentage of diffracted light diffraction is result effective variable (Paragraph 0034 where the amount of diffracted light is sought to be reduced by modifying the shape and position of the first electrodes such that an imaging effect of a camera module is improved). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the percentage of diffracted light such that the zero-order diffraction spot energy of the light- transmitting display panel and the light transmission energy of the light-transmitting display panel satisfies the following relationship expression: Io/Ix ≥ 85% wherein Io represents the zero-order diffraction spot energy of the light-transmitting display panel, and Ix represents the light transmission energy of the light-transmitting display panel because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(a).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the zero-order diffraction spot energy of the light- transmitting display panel and the light transmission energy of the light-transmitting display panel satisfies the following relationship expression: Io/Ix ≥ 85% wherein Io represents the zero-order diffraction spot energy of the light-transmitting display panel, and Ix represents the light transmission energy of the light-transmitting display panel because the greater the zero-order diffraction spot energy, the less anode diffraction will be aggravated which results in an improved imaging effect of a camera module (Zhang Paragraph 0034).
Zhang does not teach where each of the plurality of pixel units comprises a first pixel group and a second pixel group distributed along a second direction, the first pixel group comprises one first color sub-pixel, two second color sub-pixels, and one third color sub-pixel distributed along a first direction, the second pixel group comprises one third color sub-pixel, one first color sub-pixel, and two second color sub-pixels distributed along the first direction, the two second color sub-pixels in each of the first pixel group and the second pixel group are distributed along the second direction, and the first direction intersects the second direction; and the first pixel group and the second pixel group in each of the pixel units as a whole constitute a parallelogram.
Fig. 4 of Choi teaches where each of the plurality of pixel units comprises a first pixel group and a second pixel group distributed along a second direction, the first pixel group comprises one first color sub-pixel, two second color sub-pixels, and one third color sub-pixel distributed along a first direction, the second pixel group comprises one third color sub-pixel, one first color sub-pixel, and two second color sub-pixels distributed along the first direction, the two second color sub-pixels in each of the first pixel group and the second pixel group are distributed along the second direction, and the first direction intersects the second direction;, and the first pixel group and the second pixel group in each of the pixel units as a whole constitute a parallelogram (See Picture 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have each of the plurality of pixel units comprises a first pixel group and a second pixel group distributed along a second direction, the first pixel group comprises one first color sub-pixel, two second color sub-pixels, and one third color sub-pixel distributed along a first direction, the second pixel group comprises one third color sub-pixel, one first color sub-pixel, and two second color sub-pixels distributed along the first direction, the two second color sub-pixels in each of the first pixel group and the second pixel group are distributed along the second direction, and the first direction intersects the second direction;, and the first pixel group and the second pixel group in each of the pixel units as a whole constitute a parallelogram because this yields a display apparatus with an enhanced ambient contrast ratio (Choi Paragraph 0003).
PNG
media_image1.png
621
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 1 (Labeled version of Choi Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 8 of Zhang further teaches where each of the pixel units comprises two pixel groups distributed along a second direction, each of the pixel groups comprises one first color sub-pixel, one second color sub-pixel, and one third color sub-pixel, central points of first electrodes of the three sub-pixels in each of the pixel groups, when connected by lines, form a triangle, and the first direction intersects the second direction; wherein a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of each sub-pixel on the array substrate is a circle (Paragraph 0034).
Zhang does not teach where an arrangement structure of one of the pixel groups after being inverted by 180 degrees in a first direction is identical to an arrangement structure of the other one of the pixel groups in the pixel unit.
Fig. 4 of Choi teaches where an arrangement structure of one of the pixel groups after being inverted by 180 degrees in a first direction is identical to an arrangement structure of the other one of the pixel groups in the pixel unit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have an arrangement structure of one of the pixel groups after being inverted by 180 degrees in a first direction is identical to an arrangement structure of the other one of the pixel groups in the pixel unit because this is known to yield an excellent ambient contrast ratio (Choi Paragraph 0110).
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 8 of Zhang further teaches where the central points of first electrodes of the first color sub-pixel, second color sub-pixel, and third color sub-pixel in each of the pixel groups, when connected by lines, form an equilateral triangle.
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 1 of Zhang teaches a display panel comprising a first display area (Item 12) and a second display area (Item 14) adjacent to each other, light transmittance of the first display area (Item 12) being greater than light transmittance of the second display area (Item 14), wherein the first display area (Item 12) of the display panel is configured to be the light-transmitting display panel of claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above when combined with Choi; For brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2022/0302221) hereinafter “Zhang” in view of Choi (US 2016/0124557) hereinafter “Choi” and in further view of Jeon et al. (US 2019/0245017) hereinafter “Jeon”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhang and Choi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except where a diameter of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel ranges from 5µm to 25µm, a diameter of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel ranges from 10µm to 30µm, a long axis of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel ranges from 10µm to 30µm.
However, Jeon teaches where the diameter of an anode electrode are result effective variables (Paragraphs 0111 and 0106 where the diameter of circular electrodes may be different from each other such that a reduction of a phenomenon that color of reflected light is separated or spread when light incident from the outside of the organic light-emitting display device is reflected from the inside of the organic light-emitting display device and is emitted to the outside is realized). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize dimensions of the circular and elliptical first electrodes such that a diameter of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel ranges from 5µm to 25µm, a diameter of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel ranges from 10µm to 30µm, a long axis of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel ranges from 10µm to 30µm because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(a).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2022/0302221) hereinafter “Zhang” in view of Choi (US 2016/0124557) hereinafter “Choi” and in further view of Jeon et al. (US 2019/0245017) hereinafter “Jeon”.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Zhang and Choi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except where a diameter of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel ranges from 5µm to 30µm, a diameter of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel ranges from 5µm to 30µm, and a diameter of a first electrode of the third color sub-pixel ranges from 10µm to 40µm.
However, Jeon teaches where the diameter of an anode electrode is a result effective variablea (Paragraphs 0111 and 0106 where the diameter of circular electrodes may be different from each other such that a reduction of a phenomenon that color of reflected light is separated or spread when light incident from the outside of the organic light-emitting display device is reflected from the inside of the organic light-emitting display device and is emitted to the outside is realized). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize dimensions of the circular first electrodes such that a diameter of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel ranges from 5µm to 30µm, a diameter of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel ranges from 5µm to 30µm, and a diameter of a first electrode of the third color sub-pixel ranges from 10µm to 40µm because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(a).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Zhang, Choi and Jeon teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except where a distance between central points of first electrodes of two first color sub-pixels is 50µm to 250µm, a distance between central points of first electrodes of the two second color sub-pixels in each pixel group is 10µm to 30µm, a distance between central points of first electrodes of two third color sub- pixels is 10µm to 60µm.
However, Zhang teaches where the distance between subpixels is a result effective variable (Paragraphs 0040 where the distance between subpixels directly impacts the amount of diffraction that takes place). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize distance between subpixels such that a distance between central points of first electrodes of two first color sub-pixels is 50µm to 250µm, a distance between central points of first electrodes of the two second color sub-pixels in each pixel group is 10µm to 30µm, a distance between central points of first electrodes of two third color sub- pixels is 10µm to 60µm because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Choi.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights