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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the cancellation of claims 12-14 renders the previous rejections of claims 12-14 under 35 USC 112(b) moot. Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 12-14 have been withdrawn.
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)(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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xue et al. (US 2022/0352259) hereinafter “Xue”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 18 of Xue teaches a display device (Paragraph 0001) comprising: a substrate (Item 10); and a plurality of first pixels (Items 01), a plurality of second pixels (Items 03), and a plurality of third pixels (Items 02), positioned on the substrate (Item 10), wherein two adjacent first pixels of the plurality of first pixels (Items 01) and two adjacent third pixels of the plurality of third pixels (Items 02) are disposed at corners of a virtual first quadrangle that is a rectangle (Top right quadrant of Item 10), four adjacent second pixels of the plurality of second pixels (Items 03) are disposed at corners of a virtual second quadrangle that is a trapezoid having a short side (Side between two 91.27 degree angles) and a long side (Side between two 88.73 degree angles), one of the four adjacent second pixels (Items 03) is disposed within the virtual first quadrangle, and a center of the virtual first quadrangle does not overlap (Where the centers of all four quadrangles is the same in each respective quadrangle and the center each of the respective second pixels is different because of their respective shape and therefore at least one (if not all) of the centers of the second pixels will not overlap with a center of the virtual quadrangle) a center of the one of the four adjacent second pixels (Item 03).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 18 of Xue further teaches wherein the plurality of first pixels (Items 01) and the plurality of third pixels (Items 02) are alternately disposed one by one along a first direction (Up and down across the page), and the plurality of first pixels (Items 01) and the plurality of third pixels (Items 02) are alternately disposed one by one along a second direction (Left to right across the page) perpendicular to the first direction.
Regarding claim 5, Fig. 18 of Xue further teaches wherein the plurality of second pixels (Items 03) include a first-second pixel, a second-second pixel, and a third-second pixel that are sequentially disposed on a same line (a line that extends up and down the page), and a distance between the first-second pixel and the second-second pixel adjacent to each other is different from a distance between the second-second pixel and the third-second pixel adjacent to each other (due to the angles in the virtual trapezoid the distance between the first, second and third second pixels will be different from each other).
Regarding claim 6, Fig. 18 of Xue further teaches (when extrapolated out to the full display of Huang as would be seen in Fig. 3 if Fig. 3 showed a display with the pixel pattern from Fig. 18) wherein the plurality of first pixels include a first-first pixel, the plurality of third pixels include a first-third pixel and a second-third pixel, the first-third pixel, the first-first pixel, and the second-third pixel are sequentially disposed on a same line.
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 18 of Xue further teaches (when extrapolated out to the full display of Hung as would be seen in Fig. 3 if Fig. 3 showed a display with the pixel pattern from Fig. 18) wherein the plurality of first pixels (Items 01) and the plurality of third pixels (Items 02) are alternately disposed one by one along a first direction (Up and down across the page), a minimum distance and a maximum distance among distances between the plurality of first pixels and the plurality of third pixels in the first direction are alternately repeated, and a minimum distance and a maximum distance among distances between the plurality of second pixels (Items 03) adjacent in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction are alternately repeated.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0006003) hereinafter “Huang”.
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 10 of Huang (when extrapolated out to the full display of Huang as would be seen in Fig. 6 if Fig. 6 showed a display with the pixel pattern from Fig. 10) teaches a display device (Paragraph 0003) comprising: a substrate (Item 8); and a plurality of first pixels (Items 6), a plurality of second pixels (Items 5), and a plurality of third pixels (Items 7), disposed on the substrate (Item 8), wherein four of the plurality of second pixels (Items 5) are disposed at corners of a virtual first trapezoid, four of the plurality of second pixels (Items 5) are disposed at corners of a virtual second trapezoid, a long side of the virtual first trapezoid and a long side of the virtual second trapezoid overlap each other, each of the plurality of first pixels (Items 6) is disposed within and near the virtual first trapezoid, and each of the plurality of third pixels (Items 7) is disposed within and near a center of the virtual second trapezoid.
Huang does not explicitly teach where each of the first pixels is disposed at a center of the first virtual trapezoid nor where each of the third pixels is disposed at a center of the second virtual trapezoid.
However, Huang further teaches where the location of the respective first pixel (Item 6) or third pixel (Item 7) may be altered such that the respective first pixel and third pixel may be placed within the virtual trapezoid at any number of locations (Paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the first pixels be disposed at a center of the first virtual trapezoid and each of the second pixels be disposed at a center of the second virtual trapezoid because this achieves a close arrangement of pixels while avoiding the problem of color mixing between pixels cause by evaporation (Huang Paragraphs 0070 and 0071).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 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 Xue.
Applicant's arguments, with regard to claim 8, filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the Examiner is using the overall diagram of Fig. 6 of Huang to disclose the arrangement of claim 8 and the features of claim 8 are not disclosed in Fig. 6 of Huang, thus Huang does not read on claim 8. While the Examiner agrees that Fig. 6 of Huang does not read on the features of the Applicant’s claim 8, the Examiner did not, and currently does not, rely on the features of Huang Fig. 6 to read on the features recited in claim 8. Instead, in the previous and current rejection of claim 8, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Fig. 10 of Huang to teach the features of claim 8. In the rejection the Examiner recites “Fig. 10 of Huang (when extrapolated out to the full display of Huang as would be seen in Fig. 6 if Fig. 6 showed a display with the pixel pattern from Fig. 10). This means that the Examiner is referring to a larger scope of a display which is made up of multiple units having the orientation of the unit shown in Fig. 10 versus merely the single unit shown in Fig. 10. The language recited previously and currently does not suggest the Examiner is relying on the subpixel pattern shown in Fig. 6 of Huang. As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the Examiner maintains the reliance upon Huang to reject claim 8.
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 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