The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
DETAILED ACTION
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.
(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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (2016/0005382) or Guo et al. (2017/0132969).
Regarding claim 1, Guo et al. (‘382) teach in figure 1 and related text an array substrate, in at least a region, comprising a plurality of subpixels R, G, B;
wherein a light emissive region of a respective subpixel of the plurality of subpixels has a first end and a second end, the second end being on a side of the first end away from a same reference region (since every six sub-pixels encircle one center point in the shape of a flower) with respect to the plurality of subpixels in the region;
directions respectively from second ends to first ends of the plurality of subpixels substantially point toward the same reference region (said center); and
wherein, in the region, the plurality of subpixels comprise first subpixels of a first orientation and second subpixels of a second orientation;
a width of a first light emissive region of a respective first subpixel of the first subpixels increases from the first end to the second end;
a width of a second light emissive region of a respective second subpixel of the second subpixels decreases from the first end to the second end;
the first orientation is from a wider end to a narrower end of a respective first subpixel:
the second orientation is from a wider end to a narrower end of a respective second subpixel; and
the first orientation and the second orientation (in reference to said center) are substantially opposite to each other.
Regarding claim 1, Guo et al. (‘969) teach in figure 2 and related text an array substrate, in at least a region, comprising a plurality of subpixels R, G, B;
wherein a light emissive region of a respective subpixel of the plurality of subpixels has a first end and a second end, the second end being on a side of the first end away from a same reference region (since Guo et al. teach that the sub-pixels are arranged in “a circular manner” such that the reference region can be the center of the circle OR the reference point can be arbitrarily chosen in the middle of the display, as depicted in figure 2) with respect to the plurality of subpixels in the region;
directions respectively from second ends to first ends of the plurality of subpixels substantially point toward the same reference region (said center); and
wherein, in the region, the plurality of subpixels comprise first subpixels of a first orientation and second subpixels of a second orientation;
a width of a first light emissive region of a respective first subpixel of the first subpixels increases from the first end to the second end;
a width of a second light emissive region of a respective second subpixel of the second subpixels decreases from the first end to the second end; and
the first orientation and the second orientation (in reference to said center) are substantially opposite to each other.
Regarding claim 2, Guo et al. (‘382) teach in figure 1 and related text and Guo et al. (‘969) teach in figure 2 and related text that the array substrate comprising N number of portions sequentially arranged in the region, N being an integer greater than 2; wherein an (n+1)-th portion is on a side of an n-th portion away from the same reference region, 1 < n < (N-1); and subpixels of the n-th portion that are directly adjacent to the (n+1)-th portion and subpixels of the (n+1)-th portion that are directly adjacent to the n-th portion, where wider ends of light emissive regions of the subpixels of the n-th portion that are directly adjacent to the (n+1)-th portion are directly adjacent to wider ends of light emissive regions of subpixels of the (n+1)-th portion that are directly adjacent to the n-th portion, have different orientations.
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 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 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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (2016/0005382) or Guo et al. (2017/0132969).
Regarding claim 28, Guo et al. (‘382) teach in figure 1 and related text and Guo et al. (‘969) teach in figure 2 and related text a display apparatus, comprising the array substrate, but do not explicitly state using one or more integrated circuits connected to the array substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to connect one or more integrated circuits to the array substrate, in prior art’s devices, in order to operate the device in its intended use.
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (2016/0005382) or Guo et al. (2017/0132969), each in view of Zhang et al. (2021/0193745).Regarding claim 4, Guo et al. (‘382) and Guo et al. (‘969) teach substantially the entire claimed structure, as recited in claim 4, except having a respective portion of the N number of portions comprises one or more arcs of subpixels.
Zhang et al. (2021/0193745) teach in figure 2 and related text a respective portion of N number of portions comprises one or more subpixels 11 arranged in circular portions around a center.
Zhang et al., Guo et al. (‘382) and Guo et al. (‘969) are analogous art because they are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Park et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to arrange the sub-pixels in circular portions around a center, as taught by Zhang et al., in prior art’s device, in order to adjust and optimize the emission characteristics of the device.
In the combined device, a respective portion of the N number of portions comprises one or more arcs of subpixels (since the triangular shaped sub-pixels of Guo et al. (‘382) and Guo et al. (‘969), arranged in a circle, now comprise arcs); the array substrate comprises X number of arcs of subpixels at least partially surrounding the same reference region, X being an integer greater than 2; and subpixels respectively from any two directly adjacent arcs of subpixels have different orientations.
Regarding claim 5, in the combined device, a 1st portion of the N number of portions comprises one arc of subpixels, the n-th portion comprises two arcs of subpixels, and an N-th portion comprises two arcs of subpixels, and X = 2(N-1) + 1.
Regarding claim 7, in the combined device, a ratio of a number of subpixels having first orientations to a number of subpixels having second orientations in the n-th portion is greater than a ratio of a number of subpixels having first orientations to a number of subpixels having second orientations in the (n+1)-th portion (since the subpixels are now arranged in a circle such that the number of subpixels in the outer perimeter of the circle is greater than those in the inner circle).
Regarding claim 8, in the combined device, a ratio of a number of subpixels having first orientations to a number of subpixels having second orientations in the n-th portion is in a range of (n-0.5):(n-1) to (n+0.5):(n-1).
Regarding claim 10, in the combined device, at least a m-th portion of the N number of portions comprises a first sub-portion and a second sub- portion, the second sub-portion being on a side of the first sub-portion away from the same reference region, 1 < m < (N-1); and subpixels of the first sub-portion and subpixels of the second sub-portion have different orientations.
Regarding claim 12, in the combined device, a number of subpixels in the n-th portion is S * I * (2n-1); S stands for a number of subpixels in a respective pixel; and I stands for a number of subpixels in a 1st portion of the N number of portions divided by S, the 1st portion being a portion of the N number of portions closest to the same reference region.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicants argue regarding Guo 382 that “a respective first subpixel Sp1 has a first orientation OR1 from a wider end to a narrower end of the respective first subpixel SP1 and are a respective second subpixel Sp2 has a second orientation 0R2 from a wider end to a narrower end of the respective second subpixel Sp2” and this is different from claim 1 which requires that the first orientation is from a wider end to a narrower end of a respective first subpixel: the second orientation is from a wider end to a narrower end of a respective second subpixel”.
1. Applicants arbitrarily chose SP2 as a sample. However, another subpixel in figure 1 of Guo 382 has a second orientation that is from a wider end to a narrower end of a respective second subpixel.
2. Applicants argue that Guo 969 does not teach that the first orientation is from a wider end to a narrower end of a respective first subpixel: the second orientation is from a wider end to a narrower end of a respective second subpixel, because “As shown in the annotated FIG. 2, a same reference region SRR is denoted. The six subpixels surrounding the same reference region SRR all satisfy the requirement of "directions respectively from second ends to first ends of the six subpixels substantially point toward the same reference region. The display substrate includes at least a subpixel Spx having an orientation ORx from a wider end to a narrower end of the subpixel Spx. Applicants respectfully submit that a direction from a second end to a first end of the subpixel Spx does not point toward the same reference region SRR”.
2. As discussed regarding Guo 382, applicants arbitrarily chose subpixels which do not support the limitations of claim 1. Choosing another second subpixel would satisfy the requirements 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 ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
5/16/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights