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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 14 resolves the previous rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 14-20 under 35 UCS 112(b). Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 14-20 under 35 USC 112(B) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 14, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2022/0037418) hereinafter “Han”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 5 of Han teaches A display device comprising: blue pixels (B), red pixels (R), green pixels (G), and optical-sensing pixels (S) above a substrate, wherein one of the optical-sensing pixels (S) is positioned between two of the green pixels in a row direction, and between two others of the green pixels in a column direction that is perpendicular to the row direction (See Picture 1 below), and wherein the two of the green pixels on a same line in the row direction are connected to a same scan line or the two others of the green pixels on a same line in the column direction are connected to a same data line (Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 1 (Labeled version of Han Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 5 of Han further teaches wherein one of the green pixels is positioned between (See Examiner’s Note below) one of the blue pixels and one of the red pixels in the row direction.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the centers of the green, blue and red pixels are on the same line. Therefore, the green pixel may be between a red and blue pixel while being above a row in which the red and blue pixel are located.
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 5 of Han further teaches wherein one of the green pixels is positioned between (See Examiner’s Note below) one of the blue pixels and one of the red pixels in the column direction.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the centers of the green, blue and red pixels are on the same line. Therefore, the green pixel may be between a red and blue pixel while being to the left or right of a column in which the red and/or blue pixels may be located.
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 5 of Han further teaches wherein one of the green pixels is positioned adjacent to another one of the green pixels in the column direction.
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 5 of Han further teaches where the optical sensing pixels are not on a same line as the red pixels and the blue pixels in the row direction or the column direction (Where there are a subsect of all of the sensing pixels which are not in the same row or column as the red and blue pixels. The claim language does not require that all of the sensing pixels in the display are not in the same row or column as the red and blue pixels).
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 5 of Han teaches a manufacturing method of a display device comprising: preparing green pixels (G) and optical-sensing pixels (S) above a substrate; and forming an emission layer of the green pixels, wherein one of the optical sensing pixels is positioned between two of the green pixels in a row direction and two others of the green pixels in a column direction that is perpendicular to the row direction (See Picture 1 above), and wherein the two of the green pixels on a same line in the row direction are connected to a same scan line or the two others of the green pixels on a same line in the column direction are connected to a same data line (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 16, Fig. 5 of Han further teaches preparing blue pixels (Items B) and red pixels (Items R) above the substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 5 of Han further teaches where one of the green pixels is positioned between one of the blue pixels and one of the red pixels in the row direction (See Examiner’s Note below).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the centers of the green, blue and red pixels are on the same line. Therefore, the green pixel may be between a red and blue pixel while being above a row in which the red and blue pixel are located.
Regarding claim 20, Fig. 5 of Han further teaches where the optical sensing pixels are not on a same line as the red pixels and the blue pixels in the row direction or the column direction (Where there are a subsect of all of the sensing pixels which are not in the same row or column as the red and blue pixels. The claim language does not require that all of the sensing pixels in the display are not in the same row or column as the red and blue pixels) .
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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0037418) hereinafter “Han” in view of SUN et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “SUN”.
Regarding claim 5, Han teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where emission layers of neighboring ones of the plurality of green pixels are connected with each other.
Fig. 6 of SUN teaches where emission layers (Item 112) of adjacent pixels emitting the same color (Items SP3) are connected with each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have emission layers of neighboring ones of the plurality of green pixels be connected with each other because it allows the two pixels to be integrally formed on a substrate (SUN Paragraph 0144).
Regarding claim 15, Han teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the emission layer of the green pixels adjacent to each other is continuous.
Fig. 6 of SUN teaches where emission layers (Item 112) of adjacent pixels emitting the same color (Items SP3) are connected with each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the emission layer of the green pixels adjacent to each other be continuous because it allows the two pixels to be integrally formed on a substrate (SUN Paragraph 0144).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0037418) hereinafter “Han” in view of Sugimoto et al. (US 2024/0389442) hereinafter “Sugimoto”.
Regarding claim 17, Han teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where forming a hole transport layer of the optical-sensing pixels and a hole control layer of the red pixels, wherein the hole transport layer of the optical-sensing pixels and the hole control layer of the red pixels are formed using one mask.
Fig. 2A of Sugimoto teaches where a common layer (Item 114) is present in a sensor pixel (Item 110S) and light emitting pixels (Items 110B and 110G), and where the common layer may include a hole transport layer (Paragraph 0098).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a hole transport layer of the optical-sensing pixels and a hole control layer of the red pixels, wherein the hole transport layer of the optical-sensing pixels and the hole control layer of the red pixels are formed using one mask because this allows a hole transport layer, which is desired to be in all of the structures to be formed simultaneously in a single step (Sugimoto Paragraph 0098).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the formation of the hole transport layer/hole control layer is common to only the red pixel and the optical sensing pixel. This language does not preclude the hole transport layer/hole control layer also being present in the green and blue pixels as well.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0037418) hereinafter “Han” in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2024/0381678) hereinafter “Yamazaki”.
Regarding claim 6, Han teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where openings of the blue pixels, the green pixels, the red pixels and the optical-sensing pixels have an octagonal shape.
Fig. 34C further teaches where an opening of each of the plurality of blue pixels (Items B), the plurality of green pixels (Items G), the plurality of red pixels (Items R), and the plurality of optical sensing pixels (Items S) has an octagonal shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have openings of the blue pixels, the green pixels, the red pixels and the optical-sensing pixels have an octagonal shape because an octagonal shape is known to form an effective pixel (Paragraph 0651; See also See MPEP 2144.04 In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0037418) hereinafter “Han” in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2024/0381678) hereinafter “Yamazaki” and in further view of Hai et al. (US 2022/0351540) hereinafter “Hai”.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Han and Sugimoto teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention a stated above except where a size of an opening corresponding to the red pixels of the mask is greater than a size of an opening corresponding to the optical-sensing pixels.
Fig. 10A of Hai teaches where a size of an optical sensing pixel (Item 102) is smaller than a size of a red pixel (Item R).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a size of an opening corresponding to the red pixels of the mask is greater than a size of an opening corresponding to the optical-sensing pixels because this allows the optical sensing pixels to fit between the light emitting pixels to suit the needs of the user (Hai Paragraph 0049).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 14 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Han.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 8-13 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have units that are iteratively positioned above a substrate, comprising four green pixels, two red pixels, two blue pixels and one optical sensing pixel, where the optical sensing pixel is positioned at a center of one of the units, where the two of the green pixels on the same line in the row direction are connected to a same scan line or the two others of the green pixels on the same line in the column direction are connected to a same data line along with the other limitations of claim 8.
Claims 9-13 are also allowable as they depend from and include all of the limitations of allowable claim 8.
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights