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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2-12 renders the previous rejections of claims 2-11 under 112(b) moot. Therefore, the previous rejection of claims 2-11 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the parallelogram only comprises the first color subpixel, the two second color subpixels, and the one third color subpixel of the first pixel group and the one third color subpixel, the one first color subpixel, and the two second color subpixels of the second pixel group”. However, should one interpret the claim language to be that the parallelogram only has the subpixel structures listed (See 112(b) rejection below), neither of the Applicant’s specification nor the Applicant drawings support only the subpixel structure being within the parallelogram as the Applicant’s specification or drawings do not discuss the other structures which may be present (i.e. data lines, transistors etc). Appropriate change should be made to clarify the language so that it is consistent with the Applicant’s specification and drawings.
Claims 13-15 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
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 1 and 13-15 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 1, claim 1 recites “the parallelogram only comprises…”. However while “only” denotes that only the structures listed after “only” are present” the word “comprises” denotes that additional structures may be present along with those that are listed after “comprises”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim requires that just the items listed are present in the parallelogram or whether other items may be present. Appropriate changes are required to clarify the language. For purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner interprets the language of “the parallelogram only comprises…” to be “the parallelogram comprises the first color subpixel, the two second color subpixels, and the one third color subpixel of the first pixel group and the one third color subpixel, the one first color subpixel, and the two second color subpixels of the second pixel group with no additional subpixels within the parallelogram”.
Further regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the parallelogram only comprises…”. However, it is unclear whether the only comprises refers to subpixel structures or all structures. While Fig. 7 supports no other subpixels beyond the subpixels listed being present in the parallelogram, neither the specification nor the drawings support the parallelogram being devoid of other electrical structures (i.e. data lines, transistors etc.). Appropriate change is required to clarify the language. For purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner will interpret the language of “the parallelogram only comprises…” to be “the parallelogram comprises the first color subpixel, the two second color subpixels, and the one third color subpixel of the first pixel group and the one third color subpixel, the one first color subpixel, and the two second color subpixels of the second pixel group with no additional subpixels within the parallelogram”.
Claims 13-15 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
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 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, and the parallelogram comprises the first color subpixel, the two second color subpixels, and the one third color subpixel of the first pixel group and the one third color subpixel, the one first color subpixel, and the two second color subpixels of the second pixel group with no additional subpixels within the 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, and the parallelogram comprises the first color subpixel, the two second color subpixels, and the one third color subpixel of the first pixel group and the one third color subpixel, the one first color subpixel, and the two second color subpixels of the second pixel group with no additional subpixels within the 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, and the parallelogram comprises the first color subpixel, the two second color subpixels, and the one third color subpixel of the first pixel group and the one third color subpixel, the one first color subpixel, and the two second color subpixels of the second pixel group with no additional subpixels within the parallelogram because this yields a display apparatus with an enhanced ambient contrast ratio (Choi Paragraph 0003).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the entirety of the respective subpixels listed must be within the borders of the parallelogram. The Examiner further notes that the parallelogram indicated in Fig. 7 of the Applicant’s drawings is an imaginary one with no physical borders. As such, the parallelogram can be drawn in any way on the page as long as the shape is a parallelogram but is not bound by physical structures which may or may not be present in the structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
860
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 1 (Labeled version of Choi Fig. 4)
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).
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).
Claims 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2022/0302221) hereinafter “Zhang” in view of Lou et al. (US 2022/0190055) hereinafter “Lou”.
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, each of the plurality of pixel units comprises a first pixel group and a second pixel group distributed along a first direction, the first pixel group comprises a first color sub-pixel, a second color sub-pixel, and a third color sub-pixel distributed along a second direction, the second pixel group comprises a third color sub-pixel, a first color sub-pixel, and a second color sub-pixel distributed along the second direction, and the first direction intersects the second direction; where a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of the first color sub- pixel and a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of the third color sub-pixel on the array substrate are circles.
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 explicitly teach where a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of the second color sub-pixel on the array substrate is an ellipse.
Lou teaches where a shape of a first anode may be an ellipse or circle (Paragraph 0008), and where a shape of a second anode is different from the shape of the first anode (Paragraph 0031) and where the anode electrode has the same shape as the light emitting region (Paragraph 0031) and where the light emitting region may have a shape of an ellipse or circle (Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a shape of an orthographic projection of a first electrode of the second color sub-pixel on the array substrate be an ellipse so that regular slits may be effectively prevented from being formed between the bottom electrodes of subpixels, thus the diffraction impact is reduced and effects of photosensitive components are improved, area utilization rates of the bottom electrodes are increased, and thus the transparency of the transparent display region is improved (Lou Paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Zhang and Lou teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except where a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to a central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 10µm to 30µm, a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 45µm to 65µm, a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 25µm to 40µm, a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 20µm to 40µm, a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 10µm to 30µm, and a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 15µm to 30µm.
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 from a central point of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to a central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 10µm to 30µm, a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 45µm to 65µm, a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 25µm to 40µm, a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 20µm to 40µm, a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 10µm to 30µm, and a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the first pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 15µm 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).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Zhang and Lou teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except where a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to a central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 10µm to 25µm, a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 0µm to 20µm, a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 25µm to 40µm, a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 30µm to 50µm, a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 25µm to 40µm, and a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 40µm to 55µm.
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 from a central point of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to a central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 10µm to 25µm, a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the first color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 0µm to 20µm, a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 25µm to 40µm, a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 30µm to 50µm, a distance from a central point of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the first direction ranges from 25µm to 40µm, and a distance from the central point of the first electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the second pixel group to the central point of the pixel unit in the second direction ranges from 40µm to 55µm 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 24, the combination of Zhang and Lou teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Zhang does not teach where orthographic projections of the first color subpixel, the second color subpixel and the third color subpixel of the first pixel group along the second direction overlap.
Fig. 2 of Lou further teaches where orthographic projections of a first color subpixel (Item R), a second color subpixel (Item G) and a third color subpixel (Item B) of a first pixel group (Item 12) along a second direction (Up and down across the page) overlap.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have orthographic projections of the first color subpixel, the second color subpixel and the third color subpixel of the first pixel group along the second direction overlap because this is known to form a display having a diffraction impact reduced and effects of photosensitive components improved, area utilization rates of the bottom electrodes increased, and thus the transparency of a transparent display region is improved (Lou Paragraph 0009).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2022/0302221) hereinafter “Zhang” in view of Lou et al. (US 2022/0190055) hereinafter “Lou” and in further view of Jeon et al. (US 2019/0245017) hereinafter “Jeon”.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Zhang and Lou 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 third color sub-pixel ranges from 8µm to 30µm, a long axis of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel ranges from 10µm to 30µm, and a short axis of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel ranges from 8µm to 20µm.
However, Jeon teaches where the dimensions of an anode electrode are result effective variables (Paragraphs 0111 and 0106 where the dimensions 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 third color sub-pixel ranges from 8µm to 30µm, a long axis of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel ranges from 10µm to 30µm, and a short axis of the first electrode of the second color sub-pixel ranges from 8µm to 20µm 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 an alternate interpretation of Zhang.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to new claim 20 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 Lou.
Conclusion
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