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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6-11 and 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledge.
However, the common features including as claimed cannot qualify as special technical features as they do not provide a contribution over the prior art as shown below: Fig. 16 of Ma et al 20190114459 in the rejection below.
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 1-2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. 20190114459.
PNG
media_image1.png
741
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 16 of Ma discloses a display panel, comprising
a substrate 3 (par [0037]), and
pixel islands (as labeled by examiner above – shows 3 dotted regions each an island) arranged in an array on the substrate,
wherein at least one pixel island comprises a plurality of pixel drive circuits 5 (see small dotted region labeled as 5) and a plurality of light emitting devices, a light emitting device comprises a first electrode 7, and
at least one pixel drive circuit is electrically connected with a first electrode of at least one light emitting device (see fig. 3); and
first electrodes 7 of a plurality of light emitting devices within a same pixel island are arranged in parallel along a first direction (column direction), and
an orthographic projection of at least one first electrode of at least one light emitting device on the substrate is at least partially overlapped with an orthographic projection of each of at least two pixel drive circuits on the substrate (this is necessary the case as fig. 16 shows element 7 overlaps two pixel driver circuits 5).
Regarding claim 2, fig. 16 of Ma discloses wherein at least one pixel island comprises K light emitting devices, and the plurality of pixel drive circuits comprised in the at least one pixel island are arranged in an arrangement of M rows and N columns, wherein the first direction is a column direction, a second direction intersecting with the first direction is a row direction, and M, N are positive integers greater than or equal to 1.
Regarding claim 22, fig. 16 of Ma discloses A display apparatus, comprising: the display panel of claim 1.
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.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma.
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses claim 2. Ma does not disclose of wherein pixel drive circuits of adjacent columns located in a same row are mirror symmetrical with respect to a virtual straight line extending along the first direction.
In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As such, it would have been obvious to form a display panel of Ma comprising wherein pixel drive circuits of adjacent columns located in a same row are mirror symmetrical with respect to a virtual straight line extending along the first direction in order to rearrange parts to meet the applicant’s design liking.
Regarding claim 20, Ma discloses claim 1, par [0054] of Ma discloses FIG. 14 is another schematic structural diagram of a display panel according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 14, a plurality of sub-pixel regions 4 includes a first color sub-pixel region 21, a second color sub-pixel region 22, and a third color sub-pixel region 23. The anode 7 of the first color sub-pixel region 21, the anode 7 of the second color sub-pixel region 22, and the anode 7 of the third color sub-pixel region 23 are circularly arranged in the column direction. Adjacent anodes 7 in the row direction are not aligned. The anodes 7 of sub-pixel regions 4 having a same color are not adjacent to each other. That is, an anode 7 of a sub-pixel region 4 having a certain color is closest to anodes of sub-pixel regions 4 having different colors. Compared with the case in which the anodes 7 are aligned in the row direction, the spacing between adjacent anodes 7 in the row direction can be increased when adjacent anodes 7 misaligned in the row direction, thereby preventing mutual interference between signals of adjacent anodes 7 and par [0055] of Ma discloses With further reference to FIG. 14, in an embodiment, the first color sub-pixel region 21 is a red sub-pixel region, the second color sub-pixel region 22 is a blue sub-pixel region, and the third color sub-pixel region 23 is a green sub-pixel region. In the fingerprint recognition region 12, the anode 7 of each first color sub-pixel region 21 has an area of S1, the anode 7 of each second color sub-pixel region 22 has an area of S2, and the anode 7 of each third color sub-pixel region 23 has an area of S3, where S1<S2≤S3.
In addition, fig. 14 of Ma discloses a first color pixel island, a second color pixel island and a third color pixel island located within a same pixel are arranged along a second direction, wherein the first direction intersects with the second direction.
As such it would have been obvious to form a display panel comprising wherein the pixel island comprises a first color pixel island, a second color pixel island and a third color pixel island, and adjacent first color pixel island, second color pixel island and third color pixel island, that are three adjacent pixel islands, form one pixel; and a first color pixel island, a second color pixel island and a third color pixel island located within a same pixel are arranged along a second direction, wherein the first direction intersects with the second direction for preventing mutual interference between signals of adjacent anodes 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
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 PURVIS A. Sue can be reached on (571 )272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights