DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 08/26/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. (Unable to retrieve same).
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
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(s) 1-4 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0209068, previously cited) in view of Yao et al (Chinese Pub. No. CN 116709816, English machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, So discloses, at least, in figures 2-4 and 7, A display device (title) comprising: a substrate (110, ¶[0076], fig. 7) including a first display area (111, fig. 2, ¶ [0047])) including a plurality of first pixel areas (shown in fig. 4) and a plurality of transmission areas (TA, ¶ [0059]), and a second display area (112, fig. 2) including a plurality of second pixel areas (¶ [0049]); a light blocking layer (NTA, fig. 4, disposed in the first and second display areas (111,112, see fig. 6) on the substrate (110), wherein an opening overlapping each of the transmission areas is defined through the light blocking layer (see fig. 4),
and a plurality of pixels respectively disposed in the first (fig. 4) and second pixel areas (· [00459]) on the light blocking layer (NTA) and each including a light emitting element (¶ [0057]).
So fails to disclose: and the opening has a planar shape (fig. 6) including at least two adjacent circular arcs having different radii of curvature from each other;
Yao shows in figure 12 a blue sub-pixel with an oval (not elliptical, Yao bends an ellipse to form an oval) opening in a light blocking layer (50, black matrix). (Ovals are constructed from circular arcs). In the blue pixels in the center column, a radius drawn along the x axis is considerably longer than that along the y axis.
As disclosed by Yao the shape of the opening would affect the brightness of the blue pixel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the shape of Yao, in the device of So, to bring the brightness of a pixel to a desired level and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, So discloses wherein the opening is divided into first, second, third, and fourth areas based on a first imaginary line extending in a first direction passing through a center of the opening and a second imaginary line extending in a second direction crossing the first direction passing through the center in a plan view, and wherein the first and third areas (top right, bottom left) are opposite to each other with respect to the center of the opening, and the second and fourth areas (top left, bottom right) are opposite to each other with respect to the center of the opening. (imagine an ellipse sectioned along the x and z axes).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, So wherein the first, second, third, and fourth areas have planar shapes symmetrical to each other. (as divided in claim 2, they would be)
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, So fails to disclose: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth areas have planar shapes asymmetrical to each other.
However, applicant has not shown in the specification how creating such an imaginary configuration produces any novel or unexpected result or solves any known problem. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to create the claimed configuration as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding Claim 10, So discloses: wherein a transmittance of the second display area (112) Is lower than a transmittance of the first display area (111) (¶ [0048]).
Regarding Claims 11-12, So discloses: further comprising: a functional module disposed under the substrate to overlap a portion of the substrate corresponding to the first display area. (¶ [0043], in the light receiving area (111)), camera or sensor (claim 12).
Regarding Claim 13, So discloses, at least, in figures 2-4 and 7, A display device (title) comprising: a substrate (110) including a plurality of pixel areas (fig. 4) and a plurality of transmission areas (TA); a light blocking layer (NTA) disposed in the pixel areas (fig. 6, para. [0049] on the substrate (110), wherein an opening overlapping each of the transmission areas (TA) is defined through the light blocking layer (NTA) (fig. 4), and a plurality of pixels respectively disposed in the pixel areas on the light blocking layer (fig. 4) and each including a light emitting element (¶ [0057]).
So fails to disclose: and the opening has a planar shape (fig. 6) including at least two adjacent circular arcs having different radii of curvature from each other;
Yao shows in figure 12, a blue sub-pixel with an oval (not elliptical, Yao bends an ellipse to form an oval) opening in a light blocking layer (50, black matrix). (Ovals are constructed from circular arcs). In the blue pixels in the center column, a radius drawn along the x axis is considerably longer than that along the y axis. (see page 11, 5th paragraph and following paragraphs).
As disclosed by Yao the shape of the opening would affect the brightness of the blue pixel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the shape of Yao, in the device of So, to bring the brightness of a pixel to a desired level and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So (068) in view of Yao (816) and further in view of Yang et al (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0092894, previously cited).
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, So discloses in figure 7: wherein the substrate includes: a first base layer (110) including a polymer film; a first barrier layer (at 120, not labeled, on the transistor layer) disposed on the first base layer (110); a second base layer (130,¶ [0104], organic) disposed on the first barrier layer and including a polymer film (organic); and a second barrier layer (top half of 130 in fig. 7) disposed on the second base layer (bottom half of 130).
So fails to disclose a substrate including a polymer.
Yang teaches providing a substrate including an organic material (polymer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a substrate including a polymer in the device of So, as taught by Yang, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin,125USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So (068) in view of Yao (816) and further in view of Shi (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0366052, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 18, So fails to disclose: wherein each of the plurality of pixels includes: a blue sub-pixel arranged in a first column; a red sub-pixel arranged in a first row and a second column adjacent to the first column; and a green sub-pixel arranged in a second row adjacent to the first row and in the second column.
However, applicant has not shown in the specification how the claimed arrangement of pixels produces any novel or unexpected result, or solves any known problem.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to create the claimed pixel configuration in the device of So, as a matter of obvious design choice.
Also, see Shi (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0366052) who teaches this configuration in figure 1.
Regarding Claim 19, So fails to disclose: wherein a size of the blue sub-pixel is different from a size of the red sub-pixel and a size of the green sub-pixel in a plan view.
Shi teaches in paragraph [0027] that the size of the blue sub-pixel is larger than the red or green because the luminous efficiency of a blue sub-pixel is relatively low.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the blue sub-pixels in the device of So, larger than the green or red, to improve luminous efficiency.
Regarding Claim 20, So fails to disclose: wherein each of the red sub-pixel, the green sub-pixel, and the blue sub-pixel has a rectangular shape in a plan view. So does disclose in figure 4, that all of the pixels have a square shape but fails to disclose the colors.
So discloses in paragraph [0062] that the device may be an OLED (last line).
Shi teaches in an OLED (¶ [0003]) having red, green and blue pixels (¶ [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide red, green and blue pixels in the device of So, as suggested by Shi, since if involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to produce predictable results (an OLED) MPEP 2143lA.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claim 6, and specifically comprising the limitation of “wherein an arrangement of sub-pixels of each of the plurality of pixels disposed in the first pixel areas is the same as an arrangement of sub- pixels of each of the plurality of pixels disposed in the second pixel areas” including the remaining limitations.
Claims 7-9 are allowable, at least, because of their dependencies on claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented 12/19/2025 are persuasive; therefore this office action is made non-final.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD L RALEIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM -3 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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
/DONALD L RALEIGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875