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 Amendment(s)
The Amendment, filed on 10/28/2025, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/14/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
America Invents Act
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.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kanaya et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0296293 A1) as previously cited in view of Akimoto (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0211451).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 20, Kanaya et al., teaches a display device, comprising: a substrate (20, substrate,” ¶ [0050]-¶ [0055], see at least Fig. 4) including a plurality of pixels, including a plurality of sub-pixels (SP, “plurality of subpixels,” ¶ [0035]); a pixel circuit (CL1a) disposed in each sub-pixel (SP); a first light emitting element (10a) disposed in each sub-pixel disposed on one side of the pixel circuit; a second light emitting element (11a) disposed in each sub-pixel disposed on another side of the pixel circuit (CL1a); a pixel electrode (CE, “common electrode”) electrically connected with the pixel circuit (as depicted in Fig. 4, CE dips down to connect to CL) and at least one of the first light emitting element (10a) and the second light emitting element (11a); a connection electrode (SLb) electrically connecting the pixel electrode (CE) and the transistor (DRT); a first assembly electrode (E1, “first electrode”) electrically connected to the first light emitting element (10a); and a second assembly electrode (E2, “second electrode”) separated from the first assembly electrode (E1) and electrically connected to the second light emitting element (11a), wherein the first assembly electrode (E1), the second assembly electrode (E2) and the connection electrode (SLb) are deposed on a same layer (Fig. 4). Kanaya et al., is silent regarding a plurality of sub-pixels include a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel and a third sub-pixel that emit light of different colors.
In the same field of endeavor, Akimoto teaches a display device including a plurality of pixels (A, see at least Fig. 1) including a plurality of sub-pixels (plurality of 20) include a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel and a third sub-pixel that emit light of different colors (each sub-pixel 20, then further includes 3 more pixels, of R, G, B) in order to advantageously achieve a full high definition, 4K, 8K, by increasing the pixelation/sub-pixelation image quality and quantity (¶ [0004]), thereby improving marketability.
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 sub-pixelation, as disclosed by Akimoto, in the display device of Kanaya et al., in order to advantageously achieve a full high definition, 4K, 8K, by increasing the pixelation/sub-pixelation image quality and quantity (¶ [0004]), thereby improving marketability. It should be noted that the superimposition of the two combined references would result in the first light emitting element being disposed on one side and the second light emitting element being disposed on another side of the pixel circuit (adjacent or further away).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using high definition (greater sub-pixelation) as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding Claim 2, Kanaya et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first light emitting element (10a) has a same size as the second light emitting element (11a), and wherein the pixel electrode (CE) is connected to the first and second light emitting elements.
Regarding Claim 3, Kanaya et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first light emitting element (10a) has a different size from the second light emitting element (11a) (via differing sizes of respective R1, alternate variation, Fig. 5), wherein the pixel electrode (CE) is connected to one of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element.
Regarding Claim 4, Kanaya et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a first assembly electrode (E1) and a second assembly electrode (E2) spaced apart from each other and respectively disposed below the first light emitting element (10A) and the second light emitting element (11A), wherein a first electrode (of E1) of the first light emitting element and a first electrode (of E2) of the second light emitting element are electrically connected to the first assembly electrode and separated from the second assembly electrode (Fig. 4).
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art below is made of record and is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
K-PION Patent File Wrapper Search
Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claim(s) 5-19 are objected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim(s) 5 recites inter alia; a third portion extending from the first portion and overlapping with the second assembly electrode of the sub-pixel disposed in a column adjacent to the sub-pixel in which the pixel electrode.
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Kanaya et al.,) does not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
Claim(s) 6-19 are allowable because of their dependency status from Claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment(s) necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, therefore:
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hana Sanei Featherly whose telephone number is (571) 272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 9-1 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R. Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Hana Featherly/
Hana Sanei Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875