DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 02/26/2026.
Currently, claims 1, 3-15, 17, and 19-22 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 7, 10, 17, 19, and 21-22 are withdrawn.
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 Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-15, and 20 have been considered. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the subject matter of cancelled dependent claim 2, and has further specified that the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel are located in the same column of the same pixel. Applicant argues that cited prior art Lee (US Pub. No. 2016/0155416, hereinafter “Lee”) and Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0251895, hereinafter “Zhang”) do not teach the subject matter of amended independent claim 1. This argument is not found persuasive because Lee modified by Zhang would fulfill the amended limitations of claim 1. Lee teaches the claimed arrangement of the first subpixel 210 and second subpixel 220 being located in the same column of the same pixel (see Lee Fig. 2). Zhang teaches first subpixel 02 and second subpixel 03 that each respectively emit light of a color corresponding to Lee’s first and second subpixels. Zhang’s subpixels have an inward arcing shape that reduce stresses during a vapor-plating manufacturing process (Zhang ¶¶ [0036] & [0053]). As it is not pertinent to the particulars of their invention, Lee is silent in regards to the manufacturing method of their pixels and subpixels. It would be obvious to manufacture Lee’s subpixels using a vapor plating method because vapor-plating is a known method of manufacturing subpixels in the art as shown in Zhang. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Lee’s subpixels 02 and 03, which are in a same column, to have the inward arcing shape of Zhang’s subpixels in order to reduce stresses during the vapor-plating manufacturing process. Lee modified by Zhang’s subpixels would be arranged in a same column and would have unequal distances between their borders due to the inward arcing shape according to Zhang. Therefore, Lee modified by Zhang would fulfill the limitations of amended independent claim 1.
Applicant further argues that Lee and Zhang do not achieve the beneficial effect of improving defects such as dark spots, jaggy lines, or color edges achieved by amended claim 1. However, Lee modified by Zhang does teach the claimed structure of amended claim 1, as explained above. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 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, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LEE (US Pub. No. 2016/0155416) in view of ZHANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0251895).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee teaches a display panel (Fig. 2), comprising a plurality of pixels (Fig. 2, PX, ¶ [0032]) arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, wherein
each pixel includes a first sub-pixel (Fig. 2, 210, ¶ [0045]) configured to display a first color (¶ [0046] teaches that 210 can be a red subpixel), a second sub-pixel (Fig. 2, 220, ¶ [0045]) configured to display a second color (¶ [0046] teaches that 220 can be a green subpixel), and a third sub-pixel (Fig. 2, 230, ¶ [0045]) configured to display a third color (¶ [0046] teaches that 230 can be a blue subpixel);
all sub-pixels included in the plurality of pixels are arranged in a plurality of columns (Fig. 2); in an odd-numbered column of sub-pixels, first sub-pixels and second sub-pixels are alternately arranged (Fig. 2); in an even-numbered column of sub-pixels, third sub-pixels are sequentially arranged (Fig. 2); and
in a row direction, a size of the first sub-pixel of the same pixel is equal to a size of the second sub-pixel of the same pixel (Fig. 2, 210 and 220 are comparatively a same size in a horizontal direction).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach that for a first sub-pixel and a second sub-pixel located in a same column of a same pixel, along a column direction, a border of the first sub-pixel proximate to the second sub-pixel is a first border, and a border of the second sub-pixel proximate to the first sub-pixel is a second border; and distances from at least two points on the first border to the second border along the column direction are not equal; for the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel located in the same column of the same pixel, along the column direction, a border of the first sub-pixel away from the second sub-pixel is a third border, and a border of the second sub-pixel away from the first sub-pixel is a fourth border: and distances from at least two points on the third border to a fourth border of a second sub-pixel of an adjacent pixel along the column direction are not equal.
However, Zhang is a pertinent art that teaches for a first sub-pixel (Fig. 6, 02, ¶ [0037]) and a second sub-pixel (Fig. 6, 03, ¶ [0037]) of a same pixel (Fig. 6, 100, ¶ [0037]), along a column direction, a border of the first sub-pixel (Fig. 6, arc shape of 02) proximate to the second sub-pixel (¶ [0040] teaches that second sub-pixels 02 can be red and that third subpixels 03 can be green. Lee’s red subpixel 210 and green subpixel 220 are sequentially arranged and share a border. Therefore, Lee’s red and green subpixels modified according to the shape of Zhang’s red and green subpixels would be sequentially arranged and would have their respective arc shapes bordering each other) is a first border, and a border of the second sub-pixel (Fig. 6, arc shape of 03) proximate to the first sub-pixel is a second border; and distances (Lee modified by Zhang’s red and green subpixels would have two arc shapes bordering each other and would therefore fulfill this limitation) from at least two points on the first border to the second border along the column direction are not equal;
for the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel located in the same column of the same pixel (Lee’s first and second subpixels are in a same column. Therefore, Lee modified by Zhang’s first and second subpixels would be in a same column in the same pixel), along the column direction, a border of the first sub-pixel away from the second sub-pixel is a third border, and a border of the second sub-pixel away from the first sub-pixel is a fourth border: and distances from at least two points on the third border to a fourth border of a second sub-pixel of an adjacent pixel along the column direction are not equal (Lee modified by Zhang’s red and green subpixels would be sequentially arranged and would have two arc shapes facing away from each other and would therefore fulfill this limitation).
As it is not pertinent to the particulars of their invention, Lee is silent in regards to the manufacturing method of their pixels and subpixels. It would be obvious to manufacture Lee’s subpixels using a vapor plating method because vapor-plating is a known method of manufacturing subpixels in the art as shown in Zhang. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Lee’s subpixels 02 and 03, which are in a same column, to have the inward arcing shape of Zhang’s subpixels in order to reduce stresses during the vapor-plating manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 3, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Lee modified by Zhang teaches that in the row direction, a distance between the first border and the second border along the column direction increases first and then decreases (Lee modified by Zhang’s red and green subpixels would be sequentially arranged and would have two arc shapes facing towards each other and would therefore fulfill this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 21
However, Lee modified by Fig. 6 of Zhang does not explicitly teach that in the row direction, a distance between the third border and the fourth border of the second sub-pixel of the adjacent pixel in the column direction decreases first and then increases.
However, Fig. 2 is an alternative embodiment of Zhang that teaches that in the row direction, a distance between the third border and the fourth border of the second sub-pixel (Fig. 2 teaches alternative shapes for Zhang’s subpixels 02 and 03. Lee’s red and green subpixels modified according to the shape of the corresponding subpixels in Zhang Fig. 3 would be sequentially arranged and would fulfill this limitation) of the adjacent pixel in the column direction decreases first and then increases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of Lee’s red and green subpixels according to the teaching of Zhang’s alternative embodiment (Fig. 2) in order to reduce concentrated stress during manufacturing (Zhang ¶¶ [0036] & [0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 3, and Lee modified by Zhang that that at least one of the first border and the second border is in a shape of an arc (Lee’s red and green subpixels would have arc shapes in the same manner as Zhang’s red and green subpixels); and/or at least one of the third border and the fourth border is in a shape of an arc.
Regarding claim 6, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 5, and Zhang teaches that a radius of an arc is greater than or equal to a half of a size, in the row direction, of a sub-pixel to which the arc belongs (Fig. 6, the arc shape of Zhang’s subpixels 02 and 03 extend across the whole top and bottom surfaces and would therefore fulfill this limitation); and the radius of the arc is less than or equal to a maximum size, in the column direction, of the sub-pixel to which the arc belongs (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Lee modified by Zhang teaches that at least one of the first border and the third border is recessed towards an interior of the first sub-pixel (Zhang Fig. 6, subpixels 02 and 03 have inward concave arc shapes that would border each other once sequentially arranged in the manner of Lee’s subpixels); and/or at least one of the second border and the fourth border of the second sub-pixel is recessed towards an interior of the second sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 9, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Lee modified by Zhang teaches that at least one of the first border and the third border protrudes towards an outside of the first sub-pixel (Zhang Fig. 6, leftmost and rightmost portions of the arc shapes of subpixel 02 protrudes outwards from the center of the subpixel 02); and/or at least one of the second border and the fourth border of the second sub-pixel protrudes towards an outside of the second sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 11, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Lee modified by Zhang teaches that the first border and the second border are symmetrical with respect to a first reference line extending along the row direction (Zhang Fig. 6, the arc shapes of subpixels 02 and 03 appear to be symmetrical and would therefore fulfill this limitation once sequentially according to the teaching of Lee); and/or the third border and the fourth border are symmetrical with respect to another first reference line extending along the row direction.
Regarding claim 12, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Lee modified by Zhang teaches that at least one of the first border, the second border, the third border, and the fourth border is an axisymmetric pattern whose symmetry axis extends along the column direction (Zhang Fig. 6, the arc shapes of subpixels 02 and 03 appear to be symmetrical and would therefore fulfill this limitation once sequentially according to the teaching of Lee).
Regarding claim 13, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Lee modified by Zhang teaches that in the same pixel, the first sub-pixel (Lee Fig. 2, 210, ¶ [0045]) includes a fifth border (Lee Fig. 2, sidewall of 210 facing 230. Zhang’s corresponding subpixel 02 also has vertical sidewalls) extending along the column direction and proximate to the third sub-pixel (Lee Fig. 2, 230, ¶ [0045]), the second sub-pixel (Lee Fig. 2, 220, ¶ [0045]) includes a sixth border (Lee Fig. 2, sidewall of 220 facing 230. Zhang’s corresponding subpixel 03 also has vertical sidewalls) extending along the column direction and proximate to the third sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel includes a seventh border (Lee Fig. 2, sidewall of 230 facing 210 and 220) extending along the column direction and proximate to the first sub-pixel or the second sub-pixel; in the same pixel, the seventh border is at least partially directly opposite to at least one of the fifth border and the sixth border in the row direction (Lee Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Lee modified by Zhang teaches that the third sub-pixel (Lee Fig. 2, 230, ¶ [0045]) includes at least one eighth border (Lee Fig. 2, top sidewall of 230) extending along the row direction, and the at least one eighth border is a straight line segment (Lee Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Lee modified by Zhang teaches a display device (Lee Fig. 1), comprising: the display panel according to claim 1 (see Regarding independent claim 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LEE (US Pub. No. 2016/0155416) in view of ZHANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0251895) and further in view of LI et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0006444).
Regarding claim 15, Lee modified by Zhang teaches the display panel according to claim 14, and Lee modified by Zhang teaches that a distance between two adjacent third sub-pixels (Fig. 2, 230, ¶ [0045]) along the column direction is equal.
However, Lee modified by Zhang does not explicitly teach that the distance between the two adjacent third sub-pixels is greater than a minimum distance between a first sub-pixel and a second sub-pixel that are adjacent in a same column of sub-pixels.
However, Li is a pertinent art that teaches that the distance between the two adjacent third sub-pixels (Fig. 1, 23, ¶ [0023]) is greater than a minimum distance between a first sub-pixel (Fig. 1, 21, ¶ [0023]) and a second sub-pixel (Fig. 1, 22, ¶ [0023]) that are adjacent in a same column of sub-pixels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between Lee modified by Zhang’s third subpixels according to the teaching of Li (Fig. 1) in order to improve display effect (Li ¶¶ [0031]-[0034]).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813