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 .
Response to Amendment
The amended title overcomes the previous rejection.
The amendment to claim 7 overcomes the previous 112 rejection.
See the new rejections below.
Notes on Interpretation
The terms “quadrangular plane”, “rectangular plane”, etc., are interpreted to refer to structures that have a cross-sectional plane with the claimed shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki, US 2023/0309364 A1, in view of Kim, US 2016/0225834 A1.
Claim 1: Yamazaki discloses
a substrate (11-12); and
a plurality of unit pixels provided in the substrate, and comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (21, FIG. 1A) each having a light-emitting element configured to emit light, and a plurality of photo-sensing pixels (22) each having a light-receiving element that outputs a sensing signal corresponding to the light,
wherein each of the plurality of sub-pixels comprises an emission area that emits the light, and each of the plurality of photo-sensing pixels comprises a light-receiving area that receives the light, wherein the emission area and the light-receiving area are provided in the substrate to be spaced apart from each other (FIG. 3A), and
wherein each of the emission area and the light-receiving area has a shape of a quadrangular plane (FIG. 3A),
wherein the plurality of sub-pixels comprises:
a first sub-pixel (B) configured to emit light of a first color;
and a second sub-pixel (R) configured to emit light of second color different from the first color.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamazaki does not disclosed the claimed comparative widths and lengths. However, these were known in the art. See e.g. Kim FIG. 5, which discloses that wherein a width of the first sub-pixel (B) along a first direction is greater than that of the second sub-pixel (R) and that of a photo-sensing pixel of the plurality of photo-sensing pixels, and a width of the first sub-pixel along a second direction (vertical) intersecting the first direction is less than that of the second sub-pixel and that of the photo-sensing pixel.
It would have been obvious to have had such an arrangement as known in the art.
As the photo-sensing pixel of Yamazaki has squarish dimension like the light emitting pixels, it would have been expected that the long, thin blue subpixel would have the same dimensional relationship as it would to the red subpixel.
Note that Kim discloses the same general arrangement as Yamazaki: a BGBG direction, a perpendicular RBRB direction, and a diagonal to those two RGRG direction:
PNG
media_image2.png
326
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that the entire purpose of Kim is to deal with the different orientations of the blue subpixels, and thus the different orientations and thus different relative dimensions as shown in FIG. 5 would be disclosed or suggested to those in the art.
Claim 2: the emission area has a shape of a rectangular plane, and the light-receiving area has a shape of a square plane (FIG. 3A).
Claim 3: Yamazaki discloses
the emission area of each of the plurality of sub-pixels is spaced apart from the emission area of an adjacent sub-pixel (FIG. 3A), and
each of a distance between the emission areas and a distance between the emission area and the light-receiving area is 16.5 µm or more: “the distance M between the adjacent devices is preferably greater than or equal to 10 μm, further preferably greater than or equal to 20 μm, still further preferably greater than or equal to 30 μm and preferably less than or equal to 200 μm, further preferably less than or equal to 100 μm.” [0081]).
Claim 4: one of the plurality of unit pixels of Yamazaki comprises:
one first sub-pixel positioned in a first column of the substrate;
a first pair of second sub-pixels positioned in a second column adjacent to the first column in the first direction (horizontal in the annotated figure below);
one third sub-pixel positioned in a third column adjacent to the second column in the first direction;
a second pair of second sub-pixels positioned in a fourth column adjacent to the third column in the first direction;
two first photo-sensing pixels positioned in the first column;
and a two second photo-sensing pixels positioned in the third column.
PNG
media_image3.png
577
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Note that the bottom of the second pair of second subpixels, although not shown, is clearly apparent from the repeating pattern.)
Claim 5: the first pair of second sub-pixels and the second pair of second sub-pixels emit light of an identical color (green).
Claim 6:
the first pair of second sub-pixels and the second pair of second sub-pixels emit green light (see the annotated figure above), and
either of the one first sub-pixel and the one third sub-pixel emits red light (first subpixel), and a remaining one emits blue light (second subpixel).
Claim 7: the one of the plurality of unit pixels and an adjacent unit pixel positioned in a same column as that of the one of the of the plurality of unit pixels which extends in second direction (vertical) share the two first photo-sensing pixels or the two second photo-sensing pixels.
PNG
media_image4.png
444
664
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Yamazaki discloses that
in the first column, the two first photo-sensing pixels face each other with the one first sub-pixel interposed therebetween,
and in the third column, the two second photo-sensing pixels face each other with the one third sub-pixel interposed therebetween. See the annotated figure of claim 4.
Claim 9: Yamazaki discloses that
the one first sub-pixel and the one third sub-pixel are positioned in an identical row (see the annotated figure of claim 4);
and a distance between the one first sub-pixel and the one third sub-pixel in the row is different from a distance between the one first sub-pixel and one of the two first photo-sensing pixels in the first column. Yamazaki discloses at [0081] that there is “distance M between the adjacent devices”, which suggests that the pixels are laid out in a grid with equal spacing. Since the first subpixel and the photo-sensing pixel are right next to each other, and the first sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel are two rows apart, the distances would be different (M vs 2M).
Claim 10: Yamazaki discloses that
each of the one first sub-pixel, the first pair of second sub-pixels, the second pair of second sub-pixels, and the one third sub-pixel comprises an emission area having a shape of a rectangular plane (Yamazaki FIG. 3A),
and each of the first and second photo-sensing pixels comprises a light-receiving area having a shape of a square plane (FIG. 3A).
Claim 11: Yamazaki discloses that
each of the one first sub-pixel and the one third sub-pixel comprises an emission area having a shape of a rectangular plane (Yamazaki FIG. 3A),
each of the first pair of second sub-pixels and the second pair of second sub-pixels comprises an emission area having a shape of a square plane (Yamazaki FIG. 3A),
and each of the first and second photo-sensing pixels comprises a light-receiving area having a shape of a square plane (Yamazaki FIG. 3A).
Claim 20: Yamazaki discloses
a substrate (11-12);
a first sub-pixel (21B, FIG. 1A) comprising a pixel circuit that includes at least one transistor (132, FIG. 2B) provided on the substrate, and a light-emitting element (192) electrically connected to the pixel circuit;
a second sub-pixel (21R) configured to emit light of a color different from that of the first sub-pixel;
and a photo-sensing pixel comprising a sensor circuit that includes at least one sensor transistor (131) provided on the substrate, and a light-receiving element (112) electrically connected to the sensor circuit,
wherein the sub-pixel comprises an emission area (121) configured to emit light from the light-emitting element, wherein the photo-sensing pixel comprises a light-receiving area (122) configured to receive the light, wherein the emission area and the light-receiving area are provided in the substrate to be spaced apart from each other (FIG. 2A),
and wherein the emission area has a shape of a rectangular plane, and the light-receiving area has a shape of a square plane (FIG. 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamazaki does not disclosed the claimed comparative widths and lengths. However, these were known in the art. See e.g. Kim FIG. 5, which discloses that wherein a width of the first sub-pixel (B) along a first direction is greater than that of the second sub-pixel (R) and that of a photo-sensing pixel of the plurality of photo-sensing pixels, and a width of the first sub-pixel along a second direction (vertical) intersecting the first direction is less than that of the second sub-pixel and that of the photo-sensing pixel.
It would have been obvious to have had such an arrangement as known in the art.
As the photo-sensing pixel of Yamazaki has squarish dimension like the light emitting pixels, it would have been expected that the long, thin blue subpixel would have the same dimensional relationship as it would to the red subpixel.
Note that Kim discloses the same general arrangement as Yamazaki: a BGBG direction, a perpendicular RBRB direction, and a diagonal to those two RGRG direction:
PNG
media_image2.png
326
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that the entire purpose of Kim is to deal with the different orientations of the blue subpixels, and thus the different orientations and thus different relative dimensions as shown in FIG. 5 would be disclosed or suggested to those in the art.
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 PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897