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 .
This OA is in response to the amendment filled on 3/17/2026 that has been entered, wherein claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The objection to the tile is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of 3/17/2026.
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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (US 2022/0344432 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shi teaches a display panel(Fig. 4B) comprising:
a substrate(14) having a first area(10), a second area(20) at least partially extending around a periphery of the first area(10), and a third area(30) at least partially extending around a periphery of the second area(20);
a first pixel portion(please see examiner annotated Fig. 4B) in a portion of the first area(10) that is adjacent to a boundary between the first area(10) and the second area(20);
a second pixel portion(please see examiner annotated Fig. 4B) nearer to a central portion of the first area(10) than the first pixel portion is, a number of sub-pixels in the first pixel portion being less than a number of sub-pixels in the second pixel portion(please see examiner annotated Fig. 4B); and
a first pixel circuit portion(D1, ¶0067) in the second area(20) and electrically connected to the first pixel portion(¶0067).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Shi teaches a display apparatus(Fig. 4B) comprising:
a display panel(Fig. 3) comprising:
a substrate having a first area(10), a second area(20) extending at least partially around a periphery of the first area(10), and a third area(30) extending at least partially around a periphery of the second area(20);
a first pixel portion(please see examiner annotated Fig. 4B) in a portion of the first area(10) that is adjacent to a boundary between the first area(10) and the second area(20);
a second pixel portion(please see examiner annotated Fig. 4B) nearer to a central portion of the first area(10) than the first pixel portion is, a number of sub-pixels in the first pixel portion being less than a number of sub-pixels in the second pixel portion; and
a first pixel circuit portion(D1, ¶0067) in the second area(20) and electrically connected to the first pixel portion(¶0067); and
a component(sensor, not illustrated, ¶0063, ¶0067) below the display panel(Fig. 3) and overlapping the first area(10).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2022/0344432 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2022/0077430 A1) of record.
Regarding claim 12, Shi teaches the display panel of claim 1, but is not relied on to teach the second pixel portion comprises two first sub-pixels, two second sub-pixels, and four third sub-pixels.
Choi teaches a display panel(Fig. 9B), wherein the second pixel portion(please see examiner annotated Fig. 9B) comprises two first sub-pixels(P2r, P2r, ¶0111), two second sub-pixels(P2b, P2b, ¶0111), and four third sub-pixels(P2g, P2g, P2g, P2g, ¶0111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shi, so that the second pixel portion comprises two first sub-pixels, two second sub-pixels, and four third sub-pixels, as taught by Choi, in order to arrange the sub-pixels in a stripe configuration(¶0111).
PNG
media_image2.png
527
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 1, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “the first pixel portion comprises one first sub-pixel, one second sub-pixel, and two third sub-pixels”.
Claims 3-12 depend on claim 2 and inherit its allowable subject matter.
Claims 13-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 13 has rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and intervening claim 12. Please see the OA dated 12/22/2025 for reasons for allowance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LAURA DYKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-5 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LAURA M DYKES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights