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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 16-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim1, 3-13, 16-18, and 20 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.
The specification as filed fails to provide support for the claim limitations “at least two second pixel groups” and “at least two third pixel groups”, with the newly required limitation of the ratio of the number of first, second and third sub-pixels has a ratio of 1:2:2 because the only embodiment that has more than two sub-pixel groups is shown in fig. 18, however, the ratio of the three different pixels in fig. 18 is 1:1:1. Therefore, the newly amended claims has enlarged the scope of claim 1 to be outside of the disclosure as filed and introduced new matter. Claim 3 also claims new matter since the three or six sub-pixels per group is directed to a non-elected embodiment.
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, 3-13, 16-18, and 20 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.
Previous claim 2 had three alternative elements being OR’ed. Claim 1 now includes two of the three elements from previous claim 2 in a non-alternative recitation and introduces an indefiniteness situation. It is unclear how a repeat unit has and maintains a 1:2:2 ratio between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sub-pixels if the repeat unit can comprise more than two second pixel groups and more than two third pixel groups. Further, it is unclear how a pixel display unit is formed by 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sub-pixels but the 1st sub-pixel is shared by adjacent two pixel display units. How can the first subpixel be part of a single display unit, but then also be a part of two other pixel display units.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du (US PGPub 2019/0058017).
Re claim 1: Du teaches (e.g. figs. 1, 2, and labeled fig. 1 below) a pixel arrangement structure comprising a plurality of repeat units (element labeled “RU”) arranged in an array (RU are arranged in an array as shown in fig. 1), each of the repeat units (RU) being an N polygon (RU is a six sided shape as shown in fig. 1), N > 4 and N being an even number (N=6), wherein the repeat unit (RU) comprises: a first pixel group (element labeled “RG1”) comprising at least two first sub-pixels (R41, and sub-pixel under R41); at least two second pixel groups (element labeled “BG1” and “BG2”), each second pixel group (BG1, BG2) of the at least two second pixel groups comprising two second sub-pixels (B41 and other sub pixels of BG1 and BG2); and at least two third pixel groups (element labeled “GG1” and “GG2”), each third pixel group (GG1, GG2) of the at least two third pixel groups comprising two third sub- pixels (G31 and other sub pixels of GG1 and GG2), the at least two second pixel groups (BG1, BG2) and the at least two third pixel groups (GG1, GG1) being alternately arranged on a peripheral side of the first pixel group (RG1).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 1, wherein N is 6, the repeat unit (RU) is a hexagon and comprises the first pixel group (RG1), three second pixel groups (BG1, BG2) and three third pixel groups (GG1, GG2), and the first pixel group comprises three or six first sub- pixels; or N is 4, the repeat unit is a quadrilateral and comprises the first pixel group, two second pixel groups and two third pixel groups, and the first pixel group comprises two or four first sub-pixels.
Re claim 4: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 3, wherein the repeat unit (RU) comprises at least two diagonals (upper half of RU and lower half of RU, and tilting fig. 1; hereinafter “D”), any one of the diagonals divides the repeat unit into two portions (upper half of RU and lower half of RU, and tilting fig. 1) of a same area, and in the repeat unit (RU), at least four second sub-pixels (sub-pixels of BG1 and BG2) and/or at least four third sub-pixels (sub-pixels of GG1 and GG2) are arranged at two sides of any one of the diagonals.
Re claim 5: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 4, wherein the repeat unit (RU) is a regular polygon, and at least one of the first pixel group (RG1), the second pixel group (BG1, BG2) and the third pixel group (GG1, GG2) is symmetrically arranged about the diagonal (D).
Re claim 6: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 5, wherein in the repeat unit (RU), at least four second sub-pixels (sub-pixels of BG1, BG2) and at least four third sub-pixels (sub-pixels of GG1, GG2) are symmetrically arranged about the diagonals (D).
Re claim 7: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 4, wherein the at least two first sub-pixels (sub-pixels of RG1) in the first pixel group (RG1) are symmetrically arranged about the diagonal (D).
Re claim 8: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 4, wherein the second sub-pixels (sub-pixels of BG1, BG2) and the third sub-pixels (sub-pixels of GG1, GG2) have the same shape and area.
Re claim 9: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 5, wherein the second sub-pixel (sub-pixels of BG1, BG2) is a trapezoid and comprises a second upper edge (upper edge of trapezoid of sub-pixels of BG1, BG2; hereinafter “2UE”) and a second lower edge (lower edge of trapezoid of sub-pixels of BG1, BG2; hereinafter “2LE”) opposite to each other and a second side edge connecting the second upper edge (2UE) and the second lower edge (2LE), wherein a length of the second upper edge (2UE) is less than a length of the second lower edge (2LE) and the second lower edge (2LE) is located at a side of the second upper edge (2UE) away from the first sub-pixel (R41), and in the second pixel group (BG1, BG2), adjacent two second side edges (side edges are parallel) of the two second sub-pixels (sub-pixels of BG1, BG2) are parallel.
Re claim 10: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 9, wherein the second sub-pixel (sub-pixels of BG1, BG2) is a quadrilateral and adjacent to the third sub-pixel (sub-pixels of GG1, GG2) by the second side edge (side edge of sub-pixels of BG1, BG2), and the second side edge (side edge of sub-pixels of BG1, BG2) is parallel to an outer edge (side edge of sub-pixels of GG1, GG2) of at least one of the third sub- pixels (sub-pixels of GG1, GG2).
Re claim 12: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 10, wherein the third sub-pixel (sub-pixels of GG1, GG2) is a trapezoid and comprises a third upper edge (upper edge of trapezoid of G11, G21; hereinafter “3UE”) and a third lower edge (lower edge of trapezoid of sub-pixels of GG1, GG2; hereinafter “3LE”) opposite to each other and a third side edge connecting the third upper edge (3UE) and the third lower edge (3LE), and a length of the third upper edge (3UE) is less than a length of the third lower edge (3LE).
Re claim 13: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 12, wherein the third lower edge (3LE) is located at a side of the third upper edge (3UE) away from the first sub-pixel (R41), in the third pixel group (GG1, GG2), adjacent two third side edges of the two third sub-pixels (GG1, GG2) are parallel, and for the second sub-pixel (BG1, BG2) and the third sub-pixel (GG1, GG2) that are adjacent, the second side edge (side edge of sub-pixels of BG1, BG2) and the third side edge (side edge of sub-pixels of GG1, GG2) are adjacent and parallel.
Re claim 16: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 1, wherein the repeat units (RU) are arranged in the array (see fig. 1) along a first direction (left-right direction of fig. 1; hereinafter “1D”) and a second direction (up-down direction of fig. 1; hereinafter “2D”); and two columns of the repeat units (RU) that are adjacent along the first direction (1D) are symmetrically distributed about an axis extending along the second direction (2D).
Re claim 17: Du teaches the pixel arrangement structure of claim 16, wherein two rows of the repeat units (RU) that are adjacent along the second direction (2D) are symmetrically distributed about an axis extending along the first direction (1D).
Re claim 18: Du teaches a display panel (display panel; e.g. paragraph 27) comprising the pixel arrangement structure of claim 1.
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 JESSE Y MIYOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/JESSE Y MIYOSHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898