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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 4, 5, 7, 14, 15 and 20 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 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), wherein one of the two others of the green pixels (See Picture 1 below) on the same line in the column direction is between one of the blue pixels and one of the red pixels on a same second line (See Examiner’s Note 1 below) in the row direction (See Examiner’s Note 2 below), and wherein one of the two others of the green pixels on the same line (See Picture 1 below) is positioned between another two of the blue pixels on a same third line in the column direction.
Han does not teach where one of the two others of the green pixels on the same line in a row direction is positioned between another one of the blue pixels and another one of the red pixels on a same third line in the column direction.
Fig. 6 of SUN teaches where adjacent pixel units in the respective column and row directions have positions of the red and blue pixels switched.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjacent pixel units in the respective column and row directions have positions of the red and blue pixels switched because this type of configuration is known to yield a display having an increased aperture ratio of the subpixel while achieving high resolution (SUN Paragraph 0004).
When Han is modified such that the adjacent pixel units in the column and row directions have the positions of the red and blue pixels switched as taught by SUN, one of the two others of the green pixels on the same line in a row direction will be positioned between another one of the blue pixels and another one of the red pixels on a same third line in the column direction
Examiner’s Note 1: While the pixels identified below are on a straight line the Examiner notes that the recitation of “a same line” does not require that the line is necessarily straight.
Examiner’s Note 2: The Examiner notes that the claim language merely requires the blue and red pixels to be on a same line and does not require the blue, red and one of the other green pixels to be on a same straight line.
PNG
media_image1.png
445
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 1 (Labeled version of Han Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 5 of Han further teaches wherein neighboring ones of the green pixels are positioned adjacent to each other in the row direction and the column direction.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Han and SUN teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Han does not teach where emission layers of the 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 the 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 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), red pixels (R), blue pixels (B) 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), wherein one of the two others of the green pixels (See Picture 1 above) on the same line in the column direction is between one of the blue pixels and one of the red pixels on a same second line (See Examiner’s Note 1 below) in the row direction (See Examiner’s Note 2 below), and wherein one of the two others of the green pixels on the same line (See Picture 1 below) is positioned between another two of the blue pixels on a same third line in the column direction.
Han does not teach where one of the two others of the green pixels on the same line in a row direction is positioned between another one of the blue pixels and another one of the red pixels on a same third line in the column direction.
Fig. 6 of SUN teaches where adjacent pixel units in the respective column and row directions have positions of the red and blue pixels switched.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjacent pixel units in the respective column and row directions have positions of the red and blue pixels switched because this type of configuration is known to yield a display having an increased aperture ratio of the subpixel while achieving high resolution (SUN Paragraph 0004).
When Han is modified such that the adjacent pixel units in the column and row directions have the positions of the red and blue pixels switched as taught by SUN, one of the two others of the green pixels on the same line in a row direction will be positioned between another one of the blue pixels and another one of the red pixels on a same third line in the column direction
Examiner’s Note 1: While the pixels identified below are on a straight line the Examiner notes that the recitation of “a same line” does not require that the line is necessarily straight.
Examiner’s Note 2: The Examiner notes that the claim language merely requires the blue and red pixels to be on a same line and does not require the blue, red and one of the other green pixels to be on a same straight line.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Han and SUN teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Han does not teach where the emission layer of neighboring ones 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 neighboring ones 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).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require any of the green to pixels to actually neighbor each other in the display. Therefore, this claim is effectively an “if” statement which would apply to only green pixels that neighbor each other in the display substrate.
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 17 is 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” and in further view of Sugimoto et al. (US 2024/0389442) hereinafter “Sugimoto”.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Han and SUN 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 SUN et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “SUN” and in further view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2024/0381678) hereinafter “Yamazaki”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Han and SUN 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 SUN et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “SUN” and in further 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, SUN 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 filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the Applicant’s claim language addresses the issue noted in the Examiner’s Note previously. The Examiner disagrees. In the previous, and current, Examiner’s not the Examiner noted that the claim language did not require that the green, red and pixels were on the same line. The Examiner avers that the current claim language also does not require that the green, red and blue pixels are on the same line. Instead, the claim language requires that the two green pixels are on the same line in the column direction and the one of the blue pixels and the one of the red pixels are on a same line in the row direction. It does not require that centers of the red, blue and green pixels are on the same line. Further, as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 14 above, the recitation of “a line” does not require that the line is straight. The line could be a wavy line that extends in the row/column direction which incorporates all of the respective pixels. Thus, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and maintains the reliance on Han at least for a portion of the rejection. However, the teaching in SUN of alternating positions of the red and blue pixels in alternating pixel units in the column and row direction has been applied to Han such that the remainder of the amended claim language is read upon.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner also notes that the claim language consists almost entirely of wherein clauses without ever positively reciting the pixels that the wherein clauses seek to state the orientation of. The Examiner suggests either deleting the term wherein from the limitations of the present claim or further stating in additional limitations, at the beginning of the claim, the structure which is modified by the wherein clauses (i.e. two of the green pixels in a row direction, a blue pixel and a red pixel in the column direction…etc).
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
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