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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment to the claims addresses the issue raised in the previous office action but uses the relative term substantially. Accordingly, the rejection is amended and upheld.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-13 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a “substantially rhombus shape”.
The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a “substantially parallelogram shape”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 14-16 are 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
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 THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights