DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 03/23/2026.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 5-6, 8-11, and 14-20 are withdrawn.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) 1-4, 7, 12, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over YANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0015600) in view of JOE et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0328259) and further in view of HUANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0292568) and further in view of WAN et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0403451) and further in view of Lee (US Pub. No. 2015/0270317).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yang teaches a display panel (Fig. 2) comprising: a plurality of unit pixels (Groups A, B, C, and D, see annotated figure below), each of the plurality of unit pixels comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (Fig. 5, Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0043]-[0046] teaches red green and blue subpixels), wherein: each of the sub-pixels comprises a light emission pattern configured to emit light (¶ [0050]); the sub-pixels of one of the unit pixels comprise one red sub-pixel (Fig. 2, ¶ [0045], subpixels filled with “///” oblique lines correspond to red subpixels), one blue sub-pixel (Fig. 2, ¶ [0045], subpixels filled with “\\\” oblique lines correspond to blue subpixels), and two green sub-pixels (Fig. 2, ¶ [0045], subpixels filled with “---” lines correspond to green subpixels); and a light emission area of each of the green sub-pixels is smaller than a light emission area of the blue sub-pixel (Fig. 2, Yang’s red and blue subpixels are comparatively larger than Yang’s green subpixels).
However, Yang does not explicitly teach that each of the blue sub-pixel and the red sub-pixel has a triangular shape; and the triangular shape of each of the blue and red sub-pixels has a same orientation.
However, Joe is a pertinent art that teaches that each of the blue sub-pixel (Figs. 3 & 18a, 320a, ¶ [0070], the Examiner notes that 320a is unlabeled in Fig. 18A) and the red sub-pixel (Figs. 3 & 18a, 320b, ¶ [0070], the Examiner notes that 320b is unlabeled in Fig. 18A) has a triangular shape.
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 Yang’s blue and red subpixels to be triangular in a similar manner to Joe (Figs. 3 & 18a) in order to improve subpixel arrangement density (It is known in the art that subpixel shapes can be selected to satisfy use requirements of subpixel arrangement density. As evidence, see Huang ¶ [0043]).
However, Yang modified by Joe does not explicitly teach that the triangular shape of each of the blue and red sub-pixels has a same orientation.
However, Wan is a pertinent art that teaches that the triangular shape of each of the blue (Fig. 4E, 444-4, ¶ [0059]) and red sub-pixels (Fig. 4E, 442-4, ¶ [0059]) has a same orientation (Fig. 4E, ¶ [0059] teaches triangular red and blue subpixels that appear to have a same orientation).
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 Yang modified by Joe’s red and blue triangular subpixels to have a same orientation according to the teaching of Wan (Fig. 4E) in order to improve manufacturing tolerances (It is known in the art that subpixel orientations can be selected to improve manufacturing tolerances. As evidence, see Lee ¶ [0006]).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Yang Fig.2
Regarding claim 2, Yang modified by Joe modified by Wan teaches the display panel of claim 1, and Yang modified by Joe teaches that the blue sub-pixel and at least one of the green sub-pixels comprise sides facing each other, and the sides are parallel to each other (Yang Fig. 2 ¶ [0045], Joe Figs. 3 & 17a ¶ [0070], both Yang’s blue subpixel and Joe’s blue subpixel have sides facing each other and substantially parallel to corresponding green subpixels. Therefore, Yang modified by Joe would fulfill this limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Yang modified by Joe modified by Wan teaches the display panel of claim 2, and Yang modified by Joe teaches that the blue sub-pixel (Joe Figs. 3 & 18a, 320a, ¶ [0070], the Examiner notes that 320a is unlabeled in Fig. 18A) has a right triangle shape (Joe Figs. 3 & 18a).
Regarding claim 4, Yang modified by Joe modified by Wan teaches the display panel of claim 2, and Yang teaches that the green sub-pixels (Yang Fig. 2, subpixels filled with horizontal lines, ¶ [0045]) have shapes line-symmetrical to each other (see Fig. 2 and annotated figure above, Yang’s green subpixels appear to be line-symmetrical with each other).
Regarding claim 7, Yang modified by Joe modified by Wan teaches the display panel of claim 2, and Yang modified by Joe teaches that the red sub-pixel (Joe Figs. 3 & 18a, 320b, ¶ [0070]) and the blue sub-pixel (Joe Figs. 3 & 18a, 320a, ¶ [0070]) have the same shape as each other (Both of Joe’s red and blue subpixels are triangular).
Regarding claim 12, Yang modified by Joe modified by Wan teaches the display panel of claim 1, and Yang teaches that the unit pixels (Groups A, B, C, and D, see annotated figure below) are located along a diagonal direction (see annotated Yang Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
511
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Yang Fig.2
Regarding claim 13, Yang modified by Joe modified by Wan teaches the display panel of claim 12, and Yang modified by Joe teaches that the green sub-pixels (Yang Fig. 2, smaller subpixels with “---” marking) comprise a first sub-pixel (Yang Fig. 2, green subpixel facing Yang’s blue subpixel) and a second sub-pixel (Yang Fig. 2, green subpixel facing Yang’s red subpixel) located along one direction crossing the diagonal direction, wherein the first sub-pixel and a blue sub-pixel of another adjacent unit pixel are located along the diagonal direction (Annotated Yang Fig. 2, blue subpixel of group B is located diagonally from group A), and wherein the first sub-pixel and a red sub-pixel of another adjacent unit pixel (Annotated Yang Fig. 2, red subpixel of Group D) are located along a direction perpendicular (see Annotated Yang Fig. 2 above) to the diagonal direction.
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
Prosecution Insights