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 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 12 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “an appearance of a coverage range of the plurality of island display units is a rhombus” is ambiguous language. The claim can appear to be referring to the collective outline of the display islands being a rhombus, but the drawings show that it is referring to the shape of certain individual display islands appearing vaguely similar to a rhombus, accounting for the square pixels. As well, the phrase “coverage range” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by coverage range). It should be noted that “coverage range” is a generic term meaning any area within a marked range. It could mean a shape or it could mean vague outline of multiple objects.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “an appearance of a coverage range of the plurality of island display units is a parallelogram” is ambiguous language. The claim can appear to be referring to the collective outline of the display islands being a parallelogram, but the drawings show that it is referring to the shape of certain individual display islands appearing vaguely similar to a parallelogram, accounting for the square pixels. As well, the phrase “coverage range” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by coverage range). It should be noted that “coverage range” is a generic term meaning any area within a marked range. It could mean a shape or it could mean vague outline of multiple objects.
Revised claims with more specific terminology are requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-1 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 1 of Kang et al. (US 20210375835 A1) teaches an image compensation device, comprising:
a substrate (100; Fig. 1; paragraph 0039) comprising a central area (110; Fig. 1; paragraph 0039) and a plurality of configuration rings (110; Fig. 1; paragraph 0039) surrounding the central area and spaced apart from the central area at different intervals; and
a plurality of island display units (110; Fig. 1; paragraph 0039) disposed on the substrate, one of the plurality of island display units is disposed in the central area (110; Fig. 1; paragraph 0039), the other of the plurality of island display units are respectively disposed in the plurality of configuration rings (110; Fig. 1; paragraph 0039).
Kang et al. does not teach device wherein each of the plurality of island display units comprises a real display area and a dummy display area located around the real display area, and comprises:
a plurality of real pixels disposed in the real display area; and
a plurality of dummy pixels disposed in the dummy display area, and a number of the plurality of dummy pixels is greater than a number of the plurality of real pixels to compensate for a display image spliced by a plurality of discrete images.
FIG. 2 of Higashisaka (US 20190237441 A1) teaches outside pixel elements (3b; FIG. 2; paragraph 0026) positioned in an outer periphery are set as a non-display region (R2; FIG. 2; paragraph 0026), and inside pixel elements (3a; FIG. 2; paragraph 0026) positioned on an inside are set as a display region (R1; FIG. 2; paragraph 0026), where there are more outside pixel elements than inside pixel elements (FIG. 2). Higashisaka does not teach the reasoning a number of the plurality of dummy pixels is greater than a number of the plurality of real pixels is to compensate for a display image spliced by a plurality of discrete images.
FIG. 1 of Sun et al. (US 20220384747 A1) teaches a picture effect displayed by the flexible display substrate is island-shaped spliced images (paragraph 0042), and each island-shaped display region (100; FIG. 1; paragraph 0066) may include one or more pixel units. Sun et al. does not teach the island-shaped display regions containing dummy or otherwise inactive pixels that would need to outnumber real pixels to compensate for the image splicing.
None of the prior art found has been able to teach the last limitation. Based on the configuration of Higashisaka and Sun et al., it would be improper in hindsight to modify Kang et al. to include the reasoning a number of the plurality of dummy pixels being greater than a number of the plurality of real pixels being to compensate for a display image spliced by a plurality of discrete images. One of ordinary skill in the art would not make the connection between the dummy pixel to real pixel ratio and the compensation of image splicing. Therefore, the combination of features is allowable.
Claims 2-1 and 14-16 would be allowable because they are dependent on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhai (US 20230230982 A1) concerns a display device with pixel circuit islands on a substrate. Sui et al. (US 20210408161 A1) concerns a display device and substrate with display islands made up of subpixels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A VLCEK whose telephone number is (571)272-9665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM -5:00 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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/J.A.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights