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) presented have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiohara [US PPGUB 20030218680].
Regarding claim 1, Shiohara teaches a light-emitting pixel layout structure, comprising
first primary color pixels (green pixel, Fig. 11),
second primary color pixels (red pixel, Fig. 11), and
third primary color pixels (blue pixel, Fig. 11),
wherein the first primary color pixels are arranged in a first homogeneous primary color rows and a second homogeneous primary color row (Fig. 11);
wherein the second primary color pixels and the third primary color pixels are arranged in a first heterogeneous primary color row and a second heterogeneous primary color row (Fig. 11);
wherein the second primary color pixels and the third primary color pixels in the first heterogeneous primary color row are alternatingly arranged (Fig. 11);
wherein the second primary color pixels and the third primary color pixels in the second heterogeneous primary color row are alternatingly arranged (Fig. 11);
wherein the first homogeneous primary color row is closest to the first heterogeneous primary color row, the first heterogeneous primary color row is closest to both the first homogeneous primary color row and the second homogeneous primary color row, the second homogeneous primary color row are closest to both the first heterogeneous primary color row and the second heterogeneous primary color row, and the second heterogeneous primary color row is closest to the second homogeneous primary color row (Fig. 11);
wherein each pixel in the first heterogeneous primary color row forms a first triangular pattern with two pixels that are closest to the each pixel in the first heterogeneous primary color row and are in the first homogeneous primary color row (Fig. 11);
wherein the each pixel in the first heterogeneous primary color row forms a second triangular pattern with two pixels that are closest to the each pixel in the first heterogeneous primary color row and are in the second homogeneous primary color row (Fig. 11);
wherein each pixel in the second homogeneous primary color row forms a third triangular pattern with two pixels that are closest to the each pixel in the second homogeneous primary color row and are in the first heterogeneous primary color row (Fig. 11);
wherein the each pixel in the second homogeneous primary color row forms a fourth triangular pattern with two pixels that are closest to the each pixel in the second homogeneous primary color row and are in the second heterogeneous primary color row (Fig. 11);
wherein the first triangular pattern, the second triangular pattern, the third triangular pattern and the fourth triangular pattern are congruent (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 3, Shiohara teaches a light-emitting pixel layout structure wherein layout sequences of the first heterogeneous primary color row and the second heterogeneous primary color row are opposite (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Shiohara teaches a light-emitting pixel layout structure wherein the first triangular pattern, the second triangular pattern, the third triangular pattern and the fourth triangular pattern are an isosceles triangular pattern (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 5, Shiohara teaches a light-emitting pixel layout structure wherein the first triangular pattern, the second triangular pattern, the third triangular pattern and the fourth triangular pattern are equilateral triangular pattern (Fig. 11).
Similarly claims 1, 3-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. [US PPGUB 20210043166].
Regarding claim 1, referring to Fig. 2 of Zhao, Zhao teaches a light-emitting pixel layout structure, comprising
first primary color pixels (green pixel, Fig. 2),
second primary color pixels (red pixel, Fig. 2), and
third primary color pixels (blue pixel, Fig. 2),
wherein the first primary color pixels are arranged in a first homogeneous primary color rows and a second homogeneous primary color row (Fig. 2);
wherein the second primary color pixels and the third primary color pixels are arranged in a first heterogeneous primary color row and a second heterogeneous primary color row (Fig. 2);
wherein the second primary color pixels and the third primary color pixels in the first heterogeneous primary color row are alternatingly arranged (Fig. 2);
wherein the second primary color pixels and the third primary color pixels in the second heterogeneous primary color row are alternatingly arranged (Fig. 2);
wherein the first homogeneous primary color row is closest to the first heterogeneous primary color row, the first heterogeneous primary color row is closest to both the first homogeneous primary color row and the second homogeneous primary color row, the second homogeneous primary color row are closest to both the first heterogeneous primary color row and the second heterogeneous primary color row, and the second heterogeneous primary color row is closest to the second homogeneous primary color row (Fig. 2);
wherein each pixel in the first heterogeneous primary color row forms a first triangular pattern with two pixels that are closest to the each pixel in the first heterogeneous primary color row and are in the first homogeneous primary color row (Fig. 2);
wherein the each pixel in the first heterogeneous primary color row forms a second triangular pattern with two pixels that are closest to the each pixel in the first heterogeneous primary color row and are in the second homogeneous primary color row (Fig. 2);
wherein each pixel in the second homogeneous primary color row forms a third triangular pattern with two pixels that are closest to the each pixel in the second homogeneous primary color row and are in the first heterogeneous primary color row (Fig. 2);
wherein the each pixel in the second homogeneous primary color row forms a fourth triangular pattern with two pixels that are closest to the each pixel in the second homogeneous primary color row and are in the second heterogeneous primary color row (Fig. 2);
wherein the first triangular pattern, the second triangular pattern, the third triangular pattern and the fourth triangular pattern are congruent (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao teaches a light-emitting pixel layout structure wherein layout sequences of the first heterogeneous primary color row and the second heterogeneous primary color row are opposite (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao teaches a light-emitting pixel layout structure wherein the first triangular pattern, the second triangular pattern, the third triangular pattern and the fourth triangular pattern are an isosceles triangular pattern (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, v teaches a light-emitting pixel layout structure wherein the first triangular pattern, the second triangular pattern, the third triangular pattern and the fourth triangular pattern are equilateral triangular pattern (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao teaches a display panel, comprising the light-emitting pixel layout structure according to claim 1 (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao teaches an electronic device, comprising the display panel according to claim 9 (smartphone, Para 2).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Mizuta [US PGPUB 20060245204].
Regarding claim 6, Zhao teaches the limitation of claim 1 upon which claim 6 depends.
Zhao does not specifically disclose a light-emitting pixel layout structure wherein the isosceles triangular pattern has a length of a bottom side being twice of its height.
Referring to the invention of Mizuta, Mizuta teaches that light-emitting pixel layout structure of a device can be of various configurations/pattern, wherein in Fig. 9B, the arrangement is such that the base of the isosceles triangular pattern has a length that differs from the other sides.
It is noted though that Mizuta does not still explicitly disclose a length of a bottom side being twice of its height.
However, it is noted (according to Mizuta) that the arrangement of pixel affects device luminance –arrangement of light sources can be optimized to suppress luminance nonuniformity (Para 10).
At least in view of such teaching by Mizuta, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum arrangement of pixels in order to achieve luminance uniformity in the device.
It should be noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Moreover, Mizuta’s disclosure of pixel arrangement affects uniform luminance, a person having ordinary skills in the art will understand that the arrangement of the pixels is a result-effective variable. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would at least be motivated to experiment to reach another workable product or process (MPEP 2144.05.II.B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiohara in view of Mizuta [US PGPUB 20060245204].
Regarding claim 6, Shiohara teaches the limitation of claim 1 upon which claim 6 depends.
Shiohara does not specifically disclose a light-emitting pixel layout structure wherein the isosceles triangular pattern has a length of a bottom side being twice of its height.
Referring to the invention of Mizuta, Mizuta teaches that light-emitting pixel layout structure of a device can be of various configurations/pattern, wherein in Fig. 9B, the arrangement is such that the base of the isosceles triangular pattern has a length that differs from the other sides.
It is noted though that Mizuta does not still explicitly disclose a length of a bottom side being twice of its height.
However, it is noted (according to Mizuta) that the arrangement of pixel affects device luminance –arrangement of light sources can be optimized to suppress luminance nonuniformity (Para 10).
At least in view of such teaching by Mizuta, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum arrangement of pixels in order to achieve luminance uniformity in the device.
It should be noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Moreover, Mizuta’s disclosure of pixel arrangement affects uniform luminance, a person having ordinary skills in the art will understand that the arrangement of the pixels is a result-effective variable. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would at least be motivated to experiment to reach another workable product or process (MPEP 2144.05.II.B).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiohara in view of Powell [US PGPUB 20110122071].
Regarding claim 9, Shiohara teaches the limitation of claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends.
Shiohara does not specifically disclose a display panel, comprising the light-emitting pixel layout structure according to claim 1.
Referring to the invention of Powell, Powell teaches a display panel comprises a plurality of image sensor pixels (Abstract).
In view of such teaching by Powell, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Shiohara comprise the teaching of Powell at least based on the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 214.I.A), such as a multi-touch device.
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Shiohara specifically in view of Powell teaches an electronic device, comprising the display panel according to claim 9 (i.e., a display system 100, Para 15).
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 ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights