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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 12 and 28 which include an array substrate comprising a plurality of subpixels but does not include various numbers of gate lines, in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 12 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claimed limitation of “in the region, pixel-per-inch (PPI) is substantially the same in accordance with a distance away from the same reference region” as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to which element said pixel-per-inch (PPI) is substantially the same.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 28, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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; and
the first orientation and the second orientation (in reference to said center) are substantially opposite to each other.
Guo et al. (‘382) do not explicitly state that in the region, pixel-per-inch (PPI) is substantially the same in accordance with a distance away from the same reference region;
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form in the region, pixel-per-inch (PPI) is substantially the same in accordance with a distance away from the same reference region, in Guo et al.’s (‘382) device, in order to adjust and optimize the emission characteristics of the device.
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.
Guo et al. (‘969) do not explicitly state that in the region, pixel-per-inch (PPI) is substantially the same in accordance with a distance away from the same reference region;
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form in the region, pixel-per-inch (PPI) is substantially the same in accordance with a distance away from the same reference region, in Guo et al.’s (‘969) device, in order to adjust and optimize the emission characteristics of the device.
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.
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, as best understood, 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.
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/
2/6/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800