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. 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. Claim(s) 1- 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0115454 A1~hereinafter “Ko”) of record. Regarding claim 1, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11) a light emitting display device comprising: a plurality of unit pixels (see fig. 11) , each comprising a first light emitting region (SP4) , a second light emitting region (SP6) , and a third light emitting region (SP8) , wherein, in a unit pixel from among the plurality of unit pixels: the first light emitting region (SP4) , the second light emitting region (SP6) , and the third light emitting region (SP8) are sequentially located along a first diagonal direction (Y1) having an angle with respect to first (X) and second directions (Y) ; the first light emitting region (SP4) and the second light emitting region (SP6) overlap with each other in the first direction or the second direction (see fig. 11) ; and the second light emitting region (SP6) and the third light emitting region (SP8) overlap with each other in the first direction (X) or the second direction (Y) . Regarding claim 2, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11) the first light emitting region (SP4) , the second light emitting region (SP6) , and the third light emitting region (SP8) have a flat shape of a polygon including a triangle or a quadrangle. Regarding claim 3, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11) at least one of edges of the polygon of the first light emitting region (SP4) , the second light emitting region (SP6) , and the third light emitting region (SP8) has a chamfered structure. Regarding claim 4, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11) some sides of the first light emitting region (SP4) , the second light emitting region (SP6) , and the third light emitting region (SP8) is parallel to the first direction (X) or the second direction (Y) , and other sides are parallel to or perpendicular to the first diagonal direction (see fig. 11) . Regarding claim 5, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11) the plurality of unit pixels comprises first unit pixels located in a first row ([0069]) , and second unit pixels located in a second row directly below the first row (see fig. 11) ; the first light emitting region, the second light emitting region, and the third light emitting region of the first unit pixels are sequentially located along the first diagonal direction (Y1; see at least fig. 11) ; and the first light emitting region (SP4) , the second light emitting region (SP6) , and the third light emitting region (SP8) of the second unit pixels are sequentially located along a second diagonal direction (Y2; see at least fig. 11) different from the first diagonal direction (Y1; see fig. 11) . Regarding claim 6, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11) the second diagonal direction (Y2) is perpendicular to the first diagonal direction (Y1) . Regarding claim 9, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11; abstract; [0022]) the first light emitting region (SP4) , the second light emitting region (SP6) , and the third light emitting region (SP8) correspond to a first opening, a second opening, and a third opening of a pixel definition layer ( see at least [0022] ; see also fig. 11 ) , respectively; a first emission layer ( see at least [0028] ; see at least fig. 11 ) is within the first opening, a second emission layer is within the second opening (see at least fig. 11) , and a third emission layer is within the third opening (see at least fig. 11) ; and the first emission layer, the second emission layer, and the third emission layer are located in the first opening, the second opening, and the third opening, respectively (see at least fig. 11). The limitation “ by an inkjet method ” is a method by process limitation. “[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Regarding claim 10, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11; [0034]; [0089]; [0111] -[ 0112]) the first light emitting region, the second light emitting region, and the third light emitting region comprise a red light emitting region, a green light emitting region, and a blue light emitting region, respectively. Regarding claim 11, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11) a geometric center of each planar shape of the first light emitting region (SP4) , the second light emitting region (SP6) , and the third light emitting region (SP8) is located along the first diagonal direction. Claim(s) 1 2 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0359078 A1~ hereinafter “Kim”) of record. Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses (in at least fig s . 3-6 ) a light emitting display device comprising: a lower panel (401) comprising a plurality of unit pixels (see at least fig. 3) ; and an upper panel (50 0 ) on the lower panel, and comprising a spacer (516) , wherein at least one unit pixel from among the plurality of unit pixels (see at least fig. 3) comprises: a first light emitting region (see at least fig. 3) , a second light emitting region (see at least fig. 3) , a third light emitting region (see at least fig. 3 ) , and a laser drilling region (abstract; [0022]-[0023] ; see fig. 5 ) ; and the laser drilling region (see fig. 5) and the spacer (516) overlap at least partially with each other in a plan view (see fig. 5) . Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the upper panel (500) further comprises: an encapsulation substrate (501) ; and a first color filter (510 fig. 3; [0020] ; [0055] ) , a second color filter (510 fig. 3; [0020] ; [0055] ) , and a third color filter (510 fig. 3; [0020] ; [0055] ) on the encapsulation substrate (501) , and wherein the spacer (516) is under the encapsulation substrate. Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) the spacer ( 516 ) overlaps with the first color filter (510) , the second color filter (510) , and the third color filter (510) in a plan view. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim(s) 15- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0359078 A1~ hereinafter “Kim”) of record in view of Ko et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0115454 A1~hereinafter “Ko”) of record. Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses all the claimed limitations except for the first light emitting region, the second light emitting region, and the third light emitting region are sequentially located along a first diagonal direction having an angle with respect to first and second directions; the first light emitting region and the second light emitting region overlap with each other in the first direction or the second direction; and the second light emitting region and the third light emitting region overlap with each other in the first direction or the second direction. K o discloses (in at least fig. 11 ) the first light emitting region (SP4) , the second light emitting region (SP6) , and the third light emitting region (SP8) are sequentially located along a first diagonal direction (Y1) having an angle with respect to first and second directions (see fig. 11) ; the first light emitting region (SP4) and the second light emitting region (SP6) overlap with each other in the first direction (X) or the second direction (Y) ; and the second light emitting region (SP6) and the third light emitting region (SP8) overlap with each other in the first direction (X) or the second direction (Y) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting display device of Kim with the arrangement teaching of Ko, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 16, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11) the second light emitting region (SP6) extends in a second diagonal direction perpendicular to the first diagonal direction (see fig. 11) , and comprises a protruded part protruding in the first direction or the second direction (see fig. 11) . Regarding claim 17, Kim as modified by Ko does not expressly disclose the second light emitting region has a horizontal spacing of 10 μm or more and 18 μm or less from the spacer in a plan view. However, Ko discloses (in at least fig. 11) the second light emitting region (SP6) has a horizontal spacing from the spacer (PS21, PS22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the second light emitting region of Ko with a horizontal spacing of 10 μm or more and 18 μm or less from the spacer in a plan view through routine experimentation. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 18, Kim as modified by Ko discloses (in at least fig s. 3-6 Kim; fig. 11 Ko ) the first light emitting region ( PX1 ) , the second light emitting region ( PX2 ) , and the third light emitting region ( PX3 ) correspond to a first opening, a second opening, and a third opening of a pixel definition layer, respectively (see at least fig. 3 ) ; a first emission layer is within the first opening (see fig. 3) , a second emission layer is within the second opening (see fig. 3) , and a third emission layer is within the third opening (see fig. 3) ; and the first light emitting region, the second light emitting region, and the third light emitting region may comprise a red light emitting region, a green light emitting region, and a blue light emitting region, respectively (see at least fig. 3; [0055]; [0127]-[0129]) . Regarding claim 19, Kim as modified by Ko discloses (in at least figs. 3-6 Kim; fig. 11 Ko) the first light emitting region, the second light emitting region, and the third light emitting region comprise a red light emitting region, a green light emitting region, and a blue light emitting region, respectively [0055]; [0127] -[ 0129] Kim ) . Regarding claim 20, Kim as modified by Ko discloses (in at least figs. 3-6 Kim; fig. 11 Ko) some sides of the first light emitting region (PX1) , the second light emitting region (PX2) , and the third light emitting region (PX3) are parallel to the first direction or the second direction, and other sides are parallel to or perpendicular to the first diagonal direction (see at least fig. 5) . Claim(s) 7 -8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0115454 A1~hereinafter “Ko”) of record in view of Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0359078 A1~ hereinafter “Kim”) of record. Regarding claim 7, Ko discloses all the claimed limitations except for at least one of the unit pixels further comprises a laser drilling region; and the second light emitting region included in the at least one of the unit pixels including the laser drilling region is shorter than the second light emitting region of another adjacent unit pixel. Kim discloses (in at least figs. 3-6) at least one of the unit pixels further comprises a laser drilling region ( LD1-LD3; [0 023]; [0084] ) ; and the second light emitting region included in the at least one of the unit pixels including the laser drilling region (LD1-LD3; [0023]; [0084]) is shorter than the second light emitting region of another adjacent unit pixel (see fig. 3) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emitting display device of Ko with the teaching of Kim for the benefit of providing a display apparatus capable of realizing high-quality images ([0007] Kim). Also, the limitation “laser drilling region” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ko and Kim discloses (in at least figs. 3-6 Kim; fig. 11 Ko) the second light emitting region included in the at least on e of the unit pixels including the laser drilling region extends in a second diagonal direction perpendicular to the first diagonal direction, and comprises a protruded part protruding in the first direction or the second direction. Also, the limitation “laser drilling region” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3099 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th~ 7:30-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James R. Greece can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3711 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT ELMITO BREVAL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /ELMITO BREVAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875