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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 - 11 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 - 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
Elected claims 1 - 11 include claims 10 – 11 which are dependent on claim 14 in the claims filed 09/22/2023. Claim 14 is drawn to a nonelected species. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner is treating claims 10 and 11 as nonelected claims as it depends on a nonelected claim drawn to the nonelected species. The claims being examined are claims 1 – 9. Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/01/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract repeats information given in the title. The abstract states “A display panel includes a plurality of…”. The title already states that the immediate invention is a display panel. The abstract should be corrected to remove the repeated information. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par. [0010] states “The each of the light-emitting diodes of…”. It appears that “The each” should just be “Each of the light emitting diodes”, as an article is unnecessary for the start of the sentence and the term “Each of the light-emitting diodes” already includes the article “the”.
Par. [0069] states “…and a third sub-pixel circuit PC1 may be…”. It appears that the sub-pixel circuit being referred to is shown as PC3 in the drawings and not PC1, which is already referred to as the first sub-pixel circuit. The correct reference numeral or letter should be used in the paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220246687 A1 hereinafter Lee.
For claim 1, Lee teaches “A display panel comprising: a plurality of first light-emitting diodes (fig. 3 numeral EDa2 and EDm; Par. [0082]; Par. [0102]) arranged in a first display area (fig. 3 numeral ADA); a plurality of first sub-pixel circuits arranged in the first display area and respectively electrically connected to the plurality of first light-emitting diodes (fig. 3 numeral TFTa2 and TFTm); a plurality of second-light emitting diodes (fig. 3 numeral EDa and EDa1) arranged in a second display area inside the first display area (fig. 3 numeral CA) and including a transmissive area (fig. 3 numeral TA); and a plurality of second sub-pixel circuits (fig. 3 numeral TFTa1) arranged in an area different from the second display area (fig. 3 numeral MA and NDA) and respectively electrically connected to the plurality of second light-emitting diodes (fig. 3 numeral TWL shows connection between the second sub-pixel circuits and the second light-emitting diodes), wherein the plurality of first light-emitting diodes and the plurality of second light-emitting diodes each include light-emitting diodes of a first color, light-emitting diodes of a second color, and light-emitting diodes of a third color (Par. [0102 – 0103]; Par. [0230 – 0234]), and a first width of an emission area of a light-emitting diode of the first color arranged in the second display area is greater than a second width of an emission area of a light-emitting diode of the first color arranged in the first display area (Par. [0070]; Par. [0097]; Par. [0263 - 0265]; fig. 3 shows the display area CA as being larger than the display area MA).”
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220246687 A1 hereinafter Lee.
For claim 9, Lee teaches all of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly state that the number of light-emitting diodes of the first color in the second display area is less than a number of light-emitting diodes of the first color arranged in the first display area pers same area, a number of light-emitting diodes of the second color arranged in the second display area is equal to a number of light-emitting diodes of the second color arranged in the first display area per same area, and a number of light-emitting diodes of the third color arranged in the second display area is equal to a number of light-emitting diodes of the third color arranged in the first display area.
Lee does teach that the number of sub-pixels in each display area is variable (fig. 11 shows display areas MA and CA with variable number of sub-pixels Pa2 and Pa1) and that each sub-pixel includes the three different color diodes (fig. 11 numerals Pr1’, Pg1’, Pg1’, Pr2’, Pg2’, and Pg3’; Par. [0243]). Lee also teaches that the number of sub-pixels arranged in each display area can be measured by unit area and that the number of sub-pixels in each display region is variable and the number of diodes can be greater in the first or second area or less in the first or second area (Par. [0075 - 0076]; Par. [0237]; Par. [0245]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the number of light-emitting diodes of the first color can be less in the first display area than the second display area , the number of light-emitting diodes of the second color can be equal in the second display area compared to the first display area, and the number of light-emitting diodes of the third color is the equal in the second display area compared to the first display area in Lee, as Lee teaches the number of diodes of each color type being variable in each display region, and that each region can have a variable number of light-emitting diodes in each display region and that each region can have the number of light-emitting diodes compared by the number of units per area the display region occupies.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 - 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For claim 2, Lee is silent regarding a first electrode of the light-emitting diode of the first color arranged in the second display area is electrically connected to a first electrode of an adjacent light-emitting diode of the first color through a first connection line. No connection line appears to be shown in Lee that connects the first electrodes of the first color light-emitting diodes (Lee, fig. 2 and fig. 3 shows adjacent light-emitting diodes, but does not show any connection line connecting the first electrode of two adjacent light-emitting diodes).
Claims 3 – 7 are allowable primarily as depending on an allowable base claim.
For claim 8, Lee teaches the multiple display areas being different in sizes and the emission area of each light-emitting diodes in each area may be different. Lee is silent regarding the light-emitting diode of the first color arranged in the second display area has a greater emission area width than the emission area width of the light-emitting diode of the second color arranged in the second display area. Similarly, Lee does not appear to teach the width of the emission area of the first color light-emitting diode in the first display area is less than a width of the emission area of the light-emitting diode of the second color arranged in the first display area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210202907 A1 teaches multiple emission areas with variable sizes and different colors. It does not appear to teach adjacent light-emitting diodes of a same color in different display areas having the electrodes connected by a connection line, or that the width of the emission areas being different and the width corresponding to the specific color of the light emitting diode.
US 20220285452 A1 teaches multiple sub-pixel circuits in different display areas with three color light-emitting diodes and that the light-emitting diodes correspond to different sized pixel regions. It does not appear to teach adjacent light-emitting diodes of a same color in different display areas having the electrodes connected by a connection line, or that the width of the emission areas being different and the width corresponding to the specific color of the light emitting diode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815