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 .
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.
Drawings
In light of the Applicant’s response and amendments to the specification the previous drawings objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the cancellation of claim 9 renders the previous rejection of claims 9-13 under 35 USC 112(b) moot. Therefore, the previous rejection of claims 9-13 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.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 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 “the one functional unit comprises a pixel unit and at least one non-display unit” in lines 2 and 3. However, line 7 of claim 1 also recites “where the one functional unit comprises a pixel unit and one non-display unit”.
While the functional unit recited in line 7 has the word “the” before it indicating it is the same functional unit as that recited in lines 2 and 3, the pixel unit has an “a” before it in both lines 7 and 3 such that it is unclear whether the indication of a pixel unit in the functional unit is the same or different structure in the two instances. For purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner interprets the claim language to be that the a pixel units in each instance are the same structure.
Further, with regard to the at least one non-display unit, it is unclear as to how many non-display units are possibly anticipated by the claim as lines 2 and 3 recite that the functional unit may have comprises at least one non-display unit while line 7 recites the one functional unit comprises one non-display unit. Firstly, it is unclear whether the one non-display unit in line 3 is the same one non-display unit in line 7 and secondly, while the use of the terms “comprises” and “includes” allows for additional structures to be present in the structure (i.e. more than one non-display unit can be present when the claim language says “the functional unit comprises …one non-display unit” as the functional unit can have the one non-display unit along with other display units) the Applicant seems to imply in their remarks that only one non-display unit should be present in the functional unit (while not being true given the claim language as is discussed further in the response to arguments below). Appropriate change should be made to resolve the antecedent basis issue and clarify the language.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites “the one functional unit comprises a pixel unit and at least one non-display unit” in lines 2 and 3. However, line 7 of claim 21 also recites “where the one functional unit comprises a pixel unit and one non-display unit”.
While the functional unit recited in line 7 has the word “the” before it indicating it is the same functional unit as that recited in lines 2 and 3, the pixel unit has an “a” before it in both lines 7 and 3 such that it is unclear whether the indication of a pixel unit in the functional unit is the same or different structure in the two instances. For purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner interprets the claim language to be that the a pixel units in each instance are the same structure.
Further, with regard to the at least one non-display unit, it is unclear as to how many non-display units are possibly anticipated by the claim as lines 2 and 3 recite that the functional unit may have comprises at least one non-display unit while line 7 recites the one functional unit comprises one non-display unit. Firstly, it is unclear whether the one non-display unit in line 3 is the same one non-display unit in line 7 and secondly, while the use of the terms “comprises” and “includes” allows for additional structures to be present in the structure (i.e. more than one non-display unit can be present when the claim language says “the functional unit comprises …one non-display unit” as the functional unit can have the one non-display unit along with other display units) the Applicant seems to imply in their remarks that only one non-display unit should be present in the functional unit (while not being true given the claim language as is discussed further in the response to arguments below). Appropriate change should be made to resolve the antecedent basis issue and clarify the language.
Claims 23 and 24 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 13, 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2021/0408140) hereinafter “Han”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 10B of Han teaches a display panel (Paragraph 0002), comprising a display region (Item DA), wherein the display region comprises at least one functional unit (See Picture 8 below) disposed on a substrate (Item 10), the one functional unit (See Picture 8 below) comprises a pixel unit (See Picture 8 below) and at least one non-display unit (Item S), wherein the pixel unit (See Picture 8 below) comprises at least one sub-pixel (Items R, B and four Gs, respectively), and an orthographic projection of the pixel unit (See Picture 8 below) on the substrate (Item 10) does not overlap an orthographic projection of the at least one non-display unit (Item S) on the substrate (Item 10), wherein the one functional unit (See Picture 8 below) comprises the pixel unit (See Picture 8 below) and the one non-display unit (See Picture 8 below), the pixel unit comprises four green sub-pixels, one blue sub-pixel and one red sub-pixel, two of the four green sub-pixels are arranged along a second direction of the substrate to form a green sub-pixel column a (See Picture 8 below), the other two of the four green sub-pixels are arranged along the second direction of the substrate to form a green sub-pixel column b (See Picture 8 below), the one non-display unit and the blue sub-pixel are arranged along the second direction of the substrate to form a combined pixel column (See Picture 8 below), the green sub-pixel column a and the combined pixel column are arranged in a first direction of the substrate (See Picture 8 below), the red sub-pixel is located on one side (bottom) of the green sub-pixel column a and the combined pixel column in the second direction of the substrate, and the green sub-pixel column b is located on one side (right side) of the red sub-pixel and the non-display unit in the first direction of the substrate, wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that stating “on one side of” merely requires that a structure is oriented on one particular side of another structure. It does not require any specific distance from or being directly adjacent to.
PNG
media_image1.png
600
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 8 (Labeled version of Han Fig. 10B)
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 10B of Han further teaches where the display panel comprises at least two functional units (See Picture 8 above), the at least two functional units are arranged along a first direction (Left to right across the page; See Picture 8 above) of the substrate to form a functional unit row, and in one functional unit row, centers of non-display units (Item S indicated in Picture 8 above) of at least three functional units are in a same straight line in the first direction (Left to right across the page).
Regarding claim 8, Han further teaches where the non-display unit (Item S) is an organic photodiode (Paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 10B of Han further teaches where the orthographic projection of the non-display unit (Item S) on the substrate (Item 10) is a diamond.
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 10B of Han further teaches where an orthographic projection of at least one of the blue subpixel, the red subpixel the four green subpixels and the non-display unit on the substrate is a polygon.
Regarding claim 21, Fig. 10B of Han teaches a method for preparing a display panel (Paragraph 0002), comprising: forming at least one functional unit (See Picture 8 above) on a substrate (Item 10), wherein the one functional unit comprises a pixel unit (Combination of Items B, R and two Gs within the functional unit; See Examiner’s Note at the beginning of the office action) and at least one non-display unit (Items S), the pixel unit comprises at least one sub-pixel (Items R, B and two Gs, respectively), an orthographic projection of the pixel unit on the substrate (Item 10) and an orthographic projection of the at least one non-display unit on the substrate (Item 10) are not overlapped, wherein the one functional unit (See Picture 8 below) comprises the pixel unit (See Picture 8 below) and the one non-display unit (See Picture 8 below), the pixel unit comprises four green sub-pixels, one blue sub-pixel and one red sub-pixel, two of the four green sub-pixels are arranged along a second direction of the substrate to form a green sub-pixel column a (See Picture 8 below), the other two of the four green sub-pixels are arranged along the second direction of the substrate to form a green sub-pixel column b (See Picture 8 below), the one non-display unit and the blue sub-pixel are arranged along the second direction of the substrate to form a combined pixel column (See Picture 8 below), the green sub-pixel column a and the combined pixel column are arranged in a first direction of the substrate (See Picture 8 below), the red sub-pixel is located on one side (bottom) of the green sub-pixel column a and the combined pixel column in the second direction of the substrate, and the green sub-pixel column b is located on one side (right side) of the red sub-pixel and the non-display unit in the first direction of the substrate, wherein the first direction is different from the second direction .
Regarding claim 23, Han further teaches where the non display unit (Item S; See Picture 8 above) comprises a sensor (Paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 24, Han teaches a display apparatus, comprising the display panel according to claim 1 (for purposes of brevity the entirety of the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here; See above).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2021/0408140) hereinafter “Han” in view of Zha et al. (US 2022/0320050) hereinafter “Zha”.
Regarding claim 7, Han teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where in the one functional unit, an area of the orthographic projection of the at least one non-display unit on the substrate is greater than 100 square microns.
Zha teaches a display (Paragraph 0003) where an area of an orthographic projection of one non-display unit (Paragraph 0009 fingerprint identification sensor) on a substrate (Item 10) is between 10 square microns and 800 square microns (Paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, in the one functional unit, an area of the orthographic projection of the at least one non-display unit on the substrate be greater than 100 square microns because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the indication of the second and first direction in Han, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 11/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 21 (which now both include former claim 16) under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) 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 Han.
The Examiner notes that while the argument regarding overcoming the rejection based on the Examiner’s indication of the second direction is persuasive the Applicant’s other arguments regarding the use of Han are not. Specifically, the Applicant argues that the function unity indicated by the Examiner does not include one non-display unit but instead has many non-display units (sensors). The Examiner does not find this persuasive as the use of comprises and includes does not limit the functional unit to one non-displayer but instead merely that the functional unit must have at least one non-display unit. As long as one non-display unit is present in the functional unit it can be labeled as such, while other non-display units may be present and are not considered the one non-display unit. The Applicant further argues that the photosensors of S of Han are located in the pixel unit labeled by the Examiner which the Applicant avers is not reasonable since the claim requires that the orthographic projection of the at least one non-display unit does not overlap with the orthographic projection of the pixel unit. The Examiner disagrees as the claim language merely requires that the orthographic projection of the pixel unit does not overlap with the orthographic projection of the at least one non-display unit. There is no language in the claim that requires the orthographic projection of the pixel unit be free from overlapping with any and all non-display units within the functional unit. As the non-display unit indicated by the Examiner in Fig. 8 above does not overlap with the pixel unit in Fig. 8 above the Applicant’s argument is not 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