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
The Amendment filed June 09, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 10-18, and 20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 09, 2026.
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, 4-6, 8-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et. al. (US 20210225269 A1), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a display panel (Fig 30 display 504, [0186]), comprising a first display area (Fig 18 second region R2, [0096]) and a second display area (Fig 18 first region R1, [0096]), a light transmittance of the first display area (Fig 18 second region R2, [0096]) being greater (R1 cannot transmit light; R2 is a light-transmitting region, [0096]) than a light transmittance of the second display area (Fig 18 first region R1, [0096]), the display panel (Fig 30 display 504, [0186]) comprising: a plurality of sub-pixels (Fig 18 light emitting point 11 and in situ light emitting point 011, [0118]) comprising first sub-pixels (Fig 18 light emitting point 11, [0095]) located in the first display area (Fig 18 second region R2, [0096]) and second sub-pixels (Fig 18 in situ light emitting point 011, [0116]) located in the second display area (Fig 18 first region R1, [0096]); pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 pixel driving circuits 250 and in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]) located in the second display area (Fig 18 first region R1, [0096]) and comprising first driving units (See annotated figure) and second driving units (See annotated figure), each of the first driving units (See annotated figure) comprising one or more first pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 pixel driving circuits 250, [0098]) configured to drive ([0113]) the first sub-pixels (Fig 18 light emitting point 11, [0095]) and N second pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]) configured to drive ([0116]) the second sub-pixels (Fig 18 in situ light emitting point 011, [0116]), each of the second driving units (See annotated figure) comprising one or more virtual areas (Fig 18 area with dummy pixel driving circuit 252, [0118]) and N second pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]) configured to drive ([0116]) the second sub-pixels (Fig 18 in situ light emitting point 011, [0116]), an arrangement of the N second pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]) in the first driving unit (See annotated figure) being the same (See annotated figure) as an arrangement of the N second pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]) in the second driving unit (See annotated figure), and N being a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 (See annotated figure), wherein the first driving units (See annotated figure) and the second driving units (See annotated figure) are uniformly distributed (the driving units are equally spaced from each other and arranged symmetrically about the y axis centered about region R2) in the second display area (Fig 18 first region R1, [0096]); and wherein the first pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 pixel driving circuits 250, [0098]) and the virtual areas (Fig 18 area with dummy pixel driving circuit 252, [0118]) are uniformly distributed (the first pixel driving circuits and virtual areas are equally spaced from each other, respectively, and arranged symmetrically about the y axis centered about region R2) in the second display area (Fig 18 first region R1, [0096]).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches a size of the first driving unit (See annotated figure of claim 1) is the same (See annotated figure of claim 1; the units are chosen from equal amounts of driving circuits so the size would be the same) as a size of the second driving unit (See annotated figure of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches a relative position of the first pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 pixel driving circuits 250 and in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]) and the N second pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 pixel driving circuits 250 and in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]) in the first driving unit (See annotated figure of claim 1) is the same (See annotated figure of claim 1) as a relative position of the virtual areas (Fig 18 area with dummy pixel driving circuit 252, [0118]) and the N second pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 pixel driving circuits 250 and in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]) in the second driving unit (See annotated figure of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches in the first driving unit (See annotated figure of claim 1), the first pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 pixel driving circuits 250) are located among (Fig 18) the N second pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches a virtual circuit (Fig 18 area with dummy pixel driving circuit 252, [0118]) is arranged in (Fig 18) the virtual area (Fig 18 dummy pixel driving circuit 252, [0118]).
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches N second sub-pixels (Fig 18 in situ light emitting point 011, [0116]) driven by the N second pixel driving circuits (Fig 18 in situ pixel driving circuits 251, [0098]) form a sub-pixel unit (See annotated figure), and a size of at least one of the first driving unit (See annotated figure) and the second driving unit (See annotated figure) fits (See annotated figure) a size of the sub-pixel unit (See annotated figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches an orthographic projection of the first driving unit (See annotated figure of claim 10) in a thickness direction of the display panel (Fig 30 display 504, [0186]) at least partially overlaps (there is an overlap in the z direction, which corresponds with the thickness direction) an orthographic projection of the sub-pixel unit (See annotated figure of claim 10) driven by the first driving unit (See annotated figure of claim 10) in the thickness direction; or (optional so not considered) an orthographic projection of the second driving unit in the thickness direction of the display panel at least partially overlaps an orthographic projection of the sub-pixel unit driven by the second driving unit in the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches the display panel (Fig 30 display 504, [0186]) comprises a plurality of sub-pixel units (Fig 18 and annotated figure of claim 10), the plurality of sub-pixel units (See annotated figure of claim 10) are arranged in a first direction (Fig 18 x direction) and a second direction (Fig 18 y direction), a size of the sub-pixel unit (See annotated figure of claim 10) in the first direction (Fig 18 x direction) is equal to a size of at least one of the first driving unit (See annotated figure of claim 10) and the second driving unit (See annotated figure of claim 10) in the first direction (Fig 18 x direction); or (optional so not considered) a size of the sub-pixel unit in the second direction is equal to a size of at least one of the first driving unit and the second driving unit in the second direction.
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches the plurality of sub-pixels (See annotated figure of claim 10) form a pixel arrangement structure comprising a plurality of repeating units arranged repeatedly (Fig 18; a display has many sub-pixels forming pixel units repeating over the entire display), the sub-pixel unit (See annotated figure of claim 10) comprises M repeating units, and M is a positive integer (a display has many sub-pixels forming pixel units repeating over the entire display).
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches the plurality of sub-pixels (Fig 18 light emitting point 11 and in situ light emitting point 011, [0118]) form a plurality of display units configured to emit white light (light emitting points 11 and 011 may emit white light, [0187] and [0189], respectively), the sub-pixel unit (See annotated figure of claim 10) comprises M display units, and M is a positive integer (a display has many sub-pixels forming pixel units repeating over the entire display).
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches the plurality of sub-pixels (Fig 18 light emitting point 11 and in situ light emitting point 011, [0118]; ) are distributed in an array (Fig 18) along a first direction (Fig 18 x direction) and a second direction (Fig 18 y direction), and the first pixel driving circuit (Fig 18 pixel driving circuits 250, [0098]) and the first sub-pixels (Fig 18 light emitting point 11, [0095]) driven by the first pixel driving circuit (Fig 18 pixel driving circuits 250, [0098]) are arranged in a same row along (Fig 18) the first direction (Fig 18 x direction).
Regarding claim 18, Yang teaches a substrate (Fig 14 substrate BS, [0121]); and a pixel definition layer (Fig 14 pixel defining layer PDL, [0121]) located on the substrate (Fig 14 substrate BS, [0121]) and comprising first pixel openings (Fig 18 not labeled, openings that have light emitting layer EML deposited for light emitting point 11) located in the first display area (Fig 18 second region R2, [0096]), wherein the first sub-pixel comprises a first light-emitting structure (Fig 18 light emitting layer EML for light emitting point 11, [0121]), a first electrode (Fig 14 electrode E1, [0121]) and a second electrode (Fig 14 electrode E2, [0121]), the first light-emitting structure (Fig 18 light emitting layer EML for light emitting point 11, [0121]) is located in the first pixel opening (Fig 18 not labeled, openings that have light emitting layer EML deposited for light emitting point 11), the first electrode (Fig 14 electrode E1, [0121]) is located at a side of the first light-emitting structure (Fig 18 light emitting layer EML for light emitting point 11, [0121]) facing (Fig 14) the substrate (Fig 14 substrate BS, [0121]), and the second electrode (Fig 14 electrode E2, [0121]) is located at a side of the first light-emitting structure(Fig 18 light emitting layer EML for light emitting point 11, [0121]) away from (Fig 14) the substrate (Fig 14 substrate BS, [0121]).
Regarding claim 20, Yang teaches a display apparatus (Fig 30 display device 502, [0186]), comprising the display panel (Fig 30 display 504, [0186]) according to 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et. al. (US 20210225269 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Saitoh et. al. (US 20220005887 A1), hereinafter Saitoh.
Yang fails to teach a size of the first pixel driving circuit is the same as a size of the virtual area.
However, Saitoh teaches a size of a pixel driving circuit (Fig 6 pixel circuits 23, [0038]) is the same ([0038]) as a size of the virtual area (Fig 6 dummy pixel circuits, [0038]). This is to simplify the manufacturing process ([0040]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to simplify the manufacturing process of a display panel and apply the teachings of Saitoh to make the first pixel driving circuit the same as a size of the virtual area. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et. al. (US 20210225269 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Huang et. al. (US 20230051046 A1), hereinafter Huang.
Yang fails to teach a structure of the virtual circuit is the same as a structure of the first pixel driving circuit.
However, Huang teaches a structure of the virtual circuit (Fig 3 not shown dummy pixel circuit, [0085] corresponds to Yang: Fig 18 dummy pixel driving circuit 252, [0118]) is the same (same structure, [0085]) as a structure of the first pixel driving circuit (Fig 3 second-type pixel circuit 20, [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Huang by having the structure of the virtual circuit be the same as that of a first pixel driving circuit. This would provide uniformity between components ([0085]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 35 USC §112 section on page 11, filed June 09, 2026, with respect to the cancellation of claim 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §112 rejection of claim 19 has been withdrawn. However, this withdrawal is moot as the claim has been cancelled.
Applicant's arguments, see paragraph beginning “However, Yang…” on page 13, filed September 13, 2024, with respect to the Yang failing to teach driving units, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The components of the driving units as claimed and further described in [0031] of the instant application are structurally similar to that of Yang. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to call such a collection a unit if desired. However, the function of the circuits contained within the units does not change. MPEP 2112.01
Applicant's arguments, beginning at the second paragraph on page 14, filed September 13, 2024, with respect to the Yang failing to teach the distribution of the different elements, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The different elements are uniformly distributed as disclosed in the rejection above. The spacings between the elements are even as shown in Yang.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights