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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/28/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s use of the phrase “a pixel unit” in the current application does not refer necessarily to a single grouping of subpixels, or to put it another way a block of subpixels, but instead refers to a number of subpixels defined by the claim (i.e. one red, one blue and two green) in a general area that may or may not be directly adjacent to each other in which the spacing in between the respective subpixels is not necessarily considered to be part of the pixel unit. The Examiner also notes that subpixels may be a part of two different pixel units as in the Applicant’s Fig. 8.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein in the one functional unit, a minimum distance from a center of the one non- display unit to a center of the four green sub-pixels is dl, a minimum distance from the center of the one non-display unit to a center of the one blue sub-pixel is d2, and a minimum distance from the center of the one non-display unit to a center of the one red sub-pixel is d3, wherein the dl, the d2 and the d3 satisfy a relation: dl is greater than or equal to d2, and dl is greater than or equal to d3” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). More specifically, d1 is not indicated in Fig. 8 which the embodiment claimed in claims 1 and 21. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 21, 23 and 24 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 “a minimum distance from a center of the one non-display unit to a center of to a center of the four green sub-pixels is d1”. However it is unclear what location “a center of the four green sub-pixels” denotes. See Picture 1 below for possible interpretations of the claim language and what that would mean for interpretations of d1. Under one interpretation of the claim language “a center of the four green sub-pixels” considers the four green sub-pixels collectively and takes the center to be a point that is central to the four total green sub-pixels but this interpretation runs into a further issue as this would mean the distance between the center of the non-display unit and the center of the four green sub-pixels is zero (Per the embodiment of Applicant’s Fig. 8 which is the only embodiment shown which has four green subpixels in a functional unit) which would not coincide with the newly amended in claim language which requires where the distance d1 is greater than d2 and d3. Under another interpretation of the claim language “a center of the four green sub-pixels” considers the four green sub-pixels separately but this interpretation runs into a further indefinite issue as under this interpretation there would be four possible distances which could be considered d1 as each green subpixel would not necessarily be the same distance from the center of the non-display unit. This is especially problematic as in same instances as can be seen from Picture 1 below the distance between the center of the non display unit and one of the green subpixels is less than the distance between a blue or red subpixel, respectively, which would not coincide with the newly amended in claim language which requires that the distance d1 is greater than d2 and d3. Further, Fig. 8 is the only embodiment shown in the Applicant drawings which has four green subpixels present in a functional unit. However, Fig. 8 does not indicate any of d1, d2 or d3 in Fig. 8. In all of the other embodiments and figures where d1 is indicated, d1 only defines the distance as it is related to only one green sub-pixel and one non-display unit. Even further, the Applicant claims in their arguments that there is support for the claim language (their amendment) at the bottom of page 11 of the original specification but the language at the bottom of page 11 of the original specification merely discusses the distance d1 as being from the center of the at least one non-display unit to the center of at least one green sub-pixel and does not discuss the distance d1 as it relates to the center of the four green subpixels. Therefore, as the drawings are silent as to d1 with respect to an embodiment where four green subpixels are present and the written specification is directed to embodiments where d1 is based upon at least one green subpixel, neither of the Applicant’s written disclosure nor drawings provide any further guidance as to what constitutes “a center of the four green subpixels is d1”. As such, the language is unclear. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 23 and 24 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
Claim 21 is also rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above as claim 21 also has the same unclear language present.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 1 (Labeled version of Applicant’s Fig. 8)
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.
Claim 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 21, 23 and 24 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 claims 1 and 21, claims 1 and 21 recite “a minimum distance from a center of the one non-display unit to a center of to a center of the four green sub-pixels is d1”. However, the Examiner avers that this claim language is not supported by the Applicant’s original disclosure. Fig. 8 is the only embodiment shown in the Applicant’s drawings which has four green subpixels present in a functional unit and thus is the only figure that is directed to the Applicant’s claimed embodiment. However, Fig. 8 does not indicate any of d1, d2 or d3 in Fig. 8. In all of the other embodiments and figures where d1 is indicated, d1 only defines the distance as it is related to only one green sub-pixel and one non-display unit. Fig. 8 does not show d1 as it related to the four green sub-pixels. Further, the Applicant claims in their arguments that there is support for the claim language (their amendment) at the bottom of page 11 of the original specification but the language at the bottom of page 11 of the original specification merely discusses the distance d1 as being from the center of the at least one non-display unit to the center of at least one green sub-pixel and does not discuss the distance d1 as it relates to the center of the four green subpixels. As the drawings are silent as to d1 with respect to an embodiment where four green subpixels are present and the written specification is directed to embodiments where d1 is based upon at least one green subpixel and not all four green sub-pixels, neither of the Applicant’s written disclosure nor drawings provide any support for the Applicants’ amendments to claims 1 and 21. Thus the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 21 are new matter. Appropriate correction is required to either remove the new matter from the claims or delete the claims containing the new matter.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 23 and 24 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that Han does not disclose the functional unit as claimed, more specifically, the Applicant argues that a single non display unit is not present in a functional unit along surrounded by the green columns the one blue and one red subpixels. The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant argues that the Examiner’s indication of the one functional unit is a reconstruction based on hindsight bias. However, the Examiner avers that the claim language allows for a reasonable interpretation of the one functional unit as indicated in the Examiner’s drawings in the previous office action. The Examiner’s basis for seemingly choosing random subpixels from different pixel groups to collectively be considered the one functional unit is based upon the applicant’s own Fig. 8 where the Applicant indicates that two of the green subpixels which belongs to one functional unit also belongs to a second functional unit. Further, nothing in the applicant’s claims seems to structurally distinguish a “one functional unit” from another functional unit except by the subpixels which are included in it. As such, the Examiner’s indication of the functional unit being a collection of subpixels (even those that are a part of different pixel groups) is a reasonable interpretation of Han. As such, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive.
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
