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
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 03/18/2026 (“A...”), in which: claim 1 is amended; claim 16 is added; claims 6 and 14 are canceled; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 13, and 15 – 16, are currently pending an Office Action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 5, 7 – 13, and 15 – 16 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Although moot, Examiner would like to clarify their position on “Triangular”. Examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments regarding “Triangular”. Examiner does not consider “Triangular” to only mean “Triangle”, i.e., Triangular ≠ Triangle, but rather Triangle ⊆ Triangular. Examiner understands “Triangular” to be an adjective that means “Similar to/Like a triangle”. Examiner can provide more context and examples at the applicant’s request should it be necessary.
Rejections
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Nonaka (US 20100289994 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Nonaka teaches a display device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2; pixel array substrate 49) having a display area (Fig. 2; image display region 16) in which a plurality of sub-pixels is disposed (Fig. 2; sub-pixels 21r, 21g, and 21b), a non-display area (Figs. 2; area of the substrate outside image display region 16) surrounding the display area (Fig. 2), and at least one curved area (Fig. 2; wherein the substrate is circular);
a plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels (Fig. 2; sub-pixels 21r, 21g, and 21b) disposed exclusively in an outer portion of the display area (Fig. 2) corresponding to the curved area (Fig. 2), wherein each sub-pixel and each heteromorphic sub-pixel emits light of a particular color (see at least [0007]), wherein each heteromorphic sub-pixel is smaller than a corresponding sub-pixel that emits light of the same color (Figs. 4 – 10); and
a connection part (Examiner understands from at least from [0031] – [0032] that the circuit structure of Figs. 13 – 14 are applicable to figures 2 – 10. Further, Figs. 13 – 14 show a portion of device circuitry including transparent electrode 22a and storage capacitor region 23 is interpreted by the examiner to be a connection part) electrically connecting the plurality of sub-pixels and the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels (Figs. 13 – 14. See [0085]),
wherein each of the heteromorphic sub-pixels is connected to one of the plurality of sub-pixels by the connection part (Figs. 13 – 14. See [0085]).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 1; however, Nonaka remains silent wherein
the sub-pixel and the heteromorphic sub-pixel connected by the connection part emit light of a same color (Claim 3 of Nonaka and Fig. 14).
Nonaka shows a 1:1 sub-pixel to heteromorphic sub-pixel connection via signal line 26, transistor 24, and the connection part. Nonaka’s disclosure within [0085] discloses the sub-pixel and the heteromorphic sub-pixel are connected “in common”; wherein the examiner understands this to be in reference to the applied signal voltage and the color associated with such.
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
each of the plurality of sub-pixels and the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels includes an emission area that emits light (see at least [0007]) , and
wherein the emission area of each of the heteromorphic sub-pixels has a polygonal shape in a plan view (at least Figs. 4 – 10).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Kim teaches the display device according to claim 3, wherein
the plurality of sub-pixels includes a first sub-pixel (red), a second sub-pixel (green) and a third sub-pixel (blue) that emit light with different colors,
the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels includes a first heteromorphic sub-pixel (red), a second heteromorphic sub-pixel (green) and a third heteromorphic sub-pixel (blue) that emit light of a same color as the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel, respectively,
the emission area of each of the plurality of sub-pixels and the emission area of the third heteromorphic sub-pixel have a rectangular shape in a plan view (at least Fig. 4),
the rectangular emission area of the third heteromorphic sub-pixel has a base equal to that of the rectangular emission area of the third sub-pixel (Fig. 4), and
the rectangular emission area of the third sub-pixel is twice a height of the rectangular emission area of the third heteromorphic sub-pixel (Fig. 4).
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
each of the plurality of sub-pixels includes a transistor (Fig. 14; transistor 24) including an active layer (Fig. 14; source/drain regions 24sd over at least the gate region 24g), a gate electrode (Fig. 14; region 24g), a source electrode (Fig. 14; source electrode of source/drain regions 24sd) and a drain electrode (Fig. 14; drain electrode of source/drain regions 24sd), and
wherein the sub-pixel and the heteromorphic sub-pixel connected by the connection part are electrically connected to a same transistor (Fig. 14 shows the sub-pixel and the heteromorphic sub-pixel connected by transparent electrodes 22a of the connection part).
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
each of the plurality of sub-pixels is disposed in a different row from other sub-pixels adjacent thereto ( at least Figs. 5 and 7).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
each of the plurality of sub-pixels is disposed in a same row as other sub-pixels adjacent thereto in a row direction (Fig. 4) and disposed in a same column as other sub-pixels adjacent thereto in a column direction (Fig. 4).
Regarding dependent Claim 15, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of sub-pixels includes a first sub-pixel (red), a second sub-pixel (green) and a third sub-pixel (blue) that emit light of different colors, and
wherein the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel have a size different from one another (Fig. 6).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (US 20100289994 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 3, wherein
the emission area of each of the plurality of sub-pixels has a rectangular shape in a plan view (Figs. 4 – 10), …
Regarding the display device features wherein:
… the emission area of each of the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels has a right triangular shape in a plan view, and
the right triangular emission area of each of the heteromorphic sub-pixels has a base and a height respectively equal to those of the rectangular emission area of each of the sub- pixels that emit light of a same color as the heteromorphic sub-pixels.
Nonaka teaches an embodiment wherein the substrate has a triangular shape (Figs. 11 – 12). Here the emission area of each of the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels has a right triangular shape in a plan view. Further, Nonaka discloses the right triangular emission area of each of the heteromorphic sub-pixels has a base and a height respectively equal to those of the rectangular emission area of each of the sub- pixels that emit light of a same color as the heteromorphic sub-pixels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Nonaka to include a portion of the display area, i.e., image display region 16, that has a flat edge, such as demonstrated by Nonaka triangular substrate (Fig. 11) such that the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels has a right triangular shape in a plan view; wherein the right triangular emission area of each of the heteromorphic sub-pixels has a base and a height respectively equal to those of the rectangular emission area of each of the sub- pixels that emit light of a same color as the heteromorphic sub-pixels, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Nonaka’s plurality of triangular heteromorphic sub-pixel permits high pixel symmetry and density as a display area edge. This known benefit in Nonaka’s triangular display area is applicable to Nonaka’s curved display area as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to display areas with edges that may be approximated as straight lines, depending on the scale considered. Further, the plurality of triangular heteromorphic sub-pixels at the edge allow for a more enjoyable user experience because the display device provides “a more complete” image. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the display device of Nonaka to include a portion of the display area, i.e., image display region 16, that has a flat edge, such as demonstrated by Nonaka triangular substrate (Fig. 11) such that the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels has a right triangular shape in a plan view; wherein the right triangular emission area of each of the heteromorphic sub-pixels has a base and a height respectively equal to those of the rectangular emission area of each of the sub- pixels that emit light of a same color as the heteromorphic sub-pixels would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Nonaka’s plurality of triangular heteromorphic sub-pixels in display devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 10, wherein
the plurality of sub-pixels includes a first sub-pixel (red), a second sub-pixel (green), and a third sub-pixel (blue) that emit light with different colors,
wherein the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels includes a first heteromorphic sub- pixel (red), a second heteromorphic sub-pixel (blue) and a third heteromorphic sub-pixel (green) that emit light of a same color as the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel, respectively, and ...
Regarding the display device feature wherein:
... wherein the second heteromorphic sub-pixel and the third heteromorphic sub-pixel are disposed in a same column as the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel (Fig. 12).
Nonaka teaches in Fig. 12 a similar pixel layout to Figs. 5 and 7 wherein the second heteromorphic sub-pixel and the third heteromorphic sub-pixel are disposed in a same column as the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel. Examiner asserts that Nonaka’s pixel layout shown in Fig. 12 may be combined with the pixel layout in Figs. 5 and/or 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Nonaka’s display area to include Nonaka’s pixel sub-pixel relationship shown in Fig. 12 such that the second heteromorphic sub-pixel and the third heteromorphic sub-pixel are disposed in a same column as the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Nonaka’s sub-pixel layout in Fig. 12 is comparable to Nonaka’s pixel layout in Figs. 5 and/or 7 because of the layout of sub-pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nonaka’s display area to include Nonaka’s pixel sub-pixel relationship shown in Fig. 12 such that the second heteromorphic sub-pixel and the third heteromorphic sub-pixel are disposed in a same column as the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel with the predictable result of placing heteromorphic sub-pixel at areas of the display device above the regular sub-pixels wherein there is not enough space for the regular sub-pixels, e.g., when there is a triangular portion of the display area.
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 11, wherein
the first heteromorphic sub-pixel is disposed in a different column from the first sub-pixel (Fig. 13).
The pixel layout spacing in Nonaka’s Fig. 13 has the sub-pixel staggered, i.e., greater pitch between pixels, such that the first heteromorphic sub-pixel is disposed in a different column from the first sub-pixel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Nonaka’s sub-pixel layout to include the first heteromorphic sub-pixel is disposed in a different column from the first sub-pixel (Fig. 13 of Nonaka), because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Fig. 13 of Nonaka is comparable to Fig. 12 of Nonaka because of the triangular shape of the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nonaka’s sub-pixel layout to include the first heteromorphic sub-pixel is disposed in a different column from the first sub-pixel (Fig. 13 of Nonaka) with the predictable result of forming proper layouts for color mixing and electrical connectivity.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (US 20100289994 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230209892 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 7, wherein
each of the plurality of sub-pixels and the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels includes an anode (Fig. 14; transparent electrodes 22),
...
wherein the connection part is disposed on a same layer and made of a same material as the anode (Fig. 14. See [0051] and [0085]).
However, Nonaka remains silent wherein:
... an organic layer disposed on the anode and a cathode disposed on the organic layer, and...
Although, Nonaka discloses a possible organic EL element as disclosed in [0112].
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a display device that has a similar connective concepts to the instant invention and Nonaka. Further, Kim discloses organic layers such that Kim discloses an organic layer (e.g., Fig. 8; light emitting elements ED) disposed on the anode (Fig. 8; first electrode AE1) and a cathode (Fig. 8; second electrode CE) disposed on the organic layer (Fig. 8). Nonaka states in [0112] that their device may include organic emission elements such as Kim’s.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Nonaka’s light emitting element to include an organic LED, as disclosed by Kim, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s organic LED is comparable to Nonaka’s liquid crystal/ light-emitting device because both may be used to form light-emitting pixels in a display device. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nonaka’s light emitting element to include an organic LED, as disclosed by Kim, with the predictable result of forming an OLED display device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (US 20100289994 A1), and further in view of Hirata (US 10379411 B2) and Masataka (US 20230371313 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 7; however, they remain silent wherein
the connection part is disposed on the same layer and made of a same material as the source electrode and the drain electrode.
Nonaka mentions in at least [0086] that storage capacity region 23 may be omitted, thus examiner asserts that the connective via of 22a would need to be connected to the source/drain region 24s/d such that storage capacity region 23 may just be considered as electrical pathway forming connection part.
Further, Hirata discloses a method of connecting a pixel electrode 17 to a drain electrode 15 (Fig. 5). This method may be used to modify the connection of Nonaka, e.g., when a storage capacity region 23 is omitted such that the connection part is disposed on the same layer as the source electrode and the drain electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Nonaka’s connection layer to include an extension part in a same layer as the source/drain electrodes of the transistor, as disclosed by Hirata, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Hirata’s extension of the pixel electrode is comparable to Nonaka’s storage capacity region/electrical pathway 23 because both allow the connection of a sub-pixel to a transistor as the source/drain layer. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nonaka’s connection part to include an extension part in a same layer as the source/drain electrodes of the transistor, as disclosed by Hirata, with the predictable result of forming a connection between a sub-pixel and a transistor.
Further, Examiner asserts that as Nonaka’s storage capacity region/electrical pathway 23 is outside the emission area and in a non-display area such that it is unnecessary for this portion to be transparent/translucent; wherein more common materials may be used, such as Hirata’s teaching of “Mo, Cr, W, Al, or Ta, or may be an alloy film containing these metals as a main component” for their second metal film used to form the drain electrode 15 (col. 5; lines 49 – 61).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Masataka teaches a capacitor electrode with may include molybdenum (Mo) (at least [0033]), a same material taught by Hirata for their drain electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the connection part of Nonaka, further in view of Hirata, to include Masataka’s teaching of materials for their capacitor electrode, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Masataka’s capacitor electrode is comparable to Nonaka’s storage capacity region/electrical pathway 23 because both have a capacity to hole/store a charge/signal and are, at minimum, electrical pathways. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connection part of Nonaka, further in view of Hirata, to include Masataka’s teaching of materials for their capacitor electrode with the predictable result of forming a more seamless connection between the pixel and transistor at the source/drain level of the display device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (US 20100289994 A1), and further in view of Tomizawa (US 20120113379 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Nonaka teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels is configured to have the same color temperature and luminance ratio as the plurality of sub-pixels (Nonaka discloses in [0057] that, “like the inner unit pixel 20, in the end portion unit pixel 21 also, the colors can appear in an equal area, thereby maintaining color balance at the outer edge 16a of the image display region 16”; wherein examiner understands the equal area to be related to luminance ratio and color balance to be analogous to color temperature).
It is the examiner’s opinion that Nonaka’s disclosure is indicative to the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels is configured to have the same color temperature and luminance ratio as the plurality of sub-pixels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tomizawa teaches associated color having set color temperatures and luminance ratios (at least [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the sub-pixels of Nonaka to include Tomizawa consideration of color temperatures and luminance ratios, associated to color, such that the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels is configured to have the same color temperature and luminance ratio as the plurality of sub-pixels, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Tomizawa’s display device is comparable to Nonaka’s display device because they both may be liquid crystal display devices. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sub-pixels of Nonaka to include Tomizawa consideration of color temperatures and luminance ratios, associated to color, such that the plurality of heteromorphic sub-pixels is configured to have the same color temperature and luminance ratio as the plurality of sub-pixels with the predictable result of providing a better quality user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230009464 A1 previously relied on.
US 20220028317 A1 – See Figs. 1A – 1C regarding curved display edges and Figs. 6A – 6B.
US 20220343862 A1 – See Figs. 1 and 19.
US 20020014837 A1 – See Figs. 8B – 8D.
US 20190164510 A1 – See Figs. 1 – 2 and 5.
US 20210265430 A1 – teaches pentile pixel layouts relevant to instant disclosure (Fig. 5).
US 12426445 B1 – teaches connecting subpixel that emit the same color light (Fig. 8).
US 20240357892 A1 – considered for its teaching of different types of subpixels of the same color being connected across different portions of a display area.
US 20220123094 A1 – considered for its teaching of different types of subpixels of the same color being connected across different portions of a display area.
US 20230126522 A1 – considered for its teaching of a common anode (Fig. 3A).
US 20240423055 A1 – considered for its teaching of triangular emission areas for a display device ([0056] and Fig. 6).
US 20200185475 A1 – considered for pixel connections (Figs. 10A – 10B).
US 20210149262 A1 – Figs. 10 – 13.
US 20220319411 A1 – considered for its teaching of different types of subpixels across different portions of a display area.
US 20220037421 A1 & US 20220149118 A1 – considered for curved display edges.
US 20240389420 A1 – considered for its teaching of different types of subpixels of the same color being connected across different portions of a display area.
US 20210327972 A1 – considered for its teaching of different types of subpixels of the same color being connected across different portions of a display area.
US 20180107059 A1 – considered for its teaching of heteromorphic pixel shapes ([0049]).
US 20240407218 A1 – considered for its teaching of different types of subpixels of the same color being connected across different portions of a display area.
US 20230165100 A1 – considered for pixel layout shown in Fig. 15.
US 20170278906 A1 – considered for teaching of heteromorphic subpixels (e.g., Fig. 3A).
US 20170125490 A1 – considered for teaching of heteromorphic subpixels (e.g., Fig. 2B).
US 20230067816 A1 – considered for its teaching of different types of subpixels of the same color being connected across different portions of a display area.
US 20170301314 A1 – Fig. 8.
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 MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights