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
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)(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, 5-8, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meng (US 20240251625).
Regarding claim 1, Meng discloses that a display device comprising:
a display panel comprising (Fig. 1):
a first display portion comprising a first sub-pixel and a second sub-pixel, each of the first and second sub-pixels including (Fig. 2):
a respective first static corner 100 at a same position relative to a respective sub-pixel center as a regular configuration of the respective sub-pixel, and a respective first dynamic corner in a different position 201 or 202 with respect to the respective sub-pixel center as the regular configuration of the respective sub-pixel sub (by supply power to portion of LEDs 201 or 202, the center of pixel shift from original subpixel 100 (Fig. 5); and
wherein the position of each first dynamic corner is located such that a shape of the first sub-pixel is different from the shape of the second sub-pixel (see modified Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reclaim 5, Meng discloses that the first sub-pixel further includes: a plurality of static corners comprising the respective first static corner; and a plurality of dynamic corners comprising the respective first dynamic corner; and wherein the plurality of static corners and the plurality of dynamic corners alternate around a perimeter of the first sub-pixel (Fig. 1 & 5).
Reclaim 6, Meng discloses that the first sub-pixel is quadrilateral or quasi- quadrilateral in shape (Fig. 1 & 5).
Reclaim 7, Meng discloses that the first and second sub-pixels are the same color (Fig. 5, composition of pixels are the same color as RGGBs).
Reclaim 8, Meng discloses that the first display portion further comprises: a first pixel comprising the first sub-pixel; and a second pixel comprising the second sub-pixel; and wherein the centers of the first sub-pixel and the first pixel have a same relative positional relationship as the centers of the second sub-pixel and the second pixel (Fig. 1 & 5).
Reclaim 12, Meng discloses that the position of each first dynamic corner is randomly located (Fig. 1 & 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (US 20240251625) in view of Xu et al. (US 20240361812).
Reclaim 9, Meng fails to teach that a camera arranged beneath the first display portion of the display panel and configured to capture images formed of incident light having passed through the display panel to the camera.
However, Xu suggests that a camera arranged beneath the first display portion of the display panel and configured to capture images (para. 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Meng with a camera arranged beneath the first display portion of the display panel and configured to capture images as taught by Xu in order to enhance the quality of the captured images (para. 0005) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 10, Meng & Xu disclose that the display panel further comprises: a second display portion comprising a third sub-pixel including no dynamic corners (Meng, Fig. 1 & 5).
Reclaim 11, , Meng & Xu disclose that an image processing system configured to: receive an image captured by the camera; and utilize a machine learning (ML) model to filter a visual artifact from the image to generate a processed image (Xu, para. 0029).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAEDA et al. (US 20070015429) in view of Meng (US 20240251625).
Regarding claim 19, MAEDA discloses that a method for manufacturing a semiconductor component, comprising:
providing a semiconductor material having a major surface, the semiconductor material comprising a first anode and a second anode 120 & 211, Fig. 10A-10G);
depositing organic material 212A on the first and second anodes utilizing a first mask M2 arranged over the semiconductor material 120 & 211, the first mask comprising a first sub-pixel region and a second sub-pixel region 23G & 23R (Fig. 10A-10G).
MAEDA fails to teach that each of the first and second sub-pixel regions respectively comprising a respective first static corner at a same position relative to a respective sub-pixel center and a respective first dynamic corner, wherein the position of each first dynamic corner is located such that a shape of the first sub-pixel region is different from the shape of the second sub-pixel region; and applying cathodes to each of the first and second sub-pixel regions of the deposited organic material.
However, Meng suggests that each of the first 201 and second sub-pixel 202 regions respectively comprising a respective first static corner at a same position relative to a respective sub-pixel center 100 (note: a center of element 100) and a respective first dynamic corner 201 or 202, wherein the position of each first dynamic corner is located such that a shape of the respective sub-pixel region is different from a regular shape of the respective sub-pixel region (a center of element 100 is different from a center of element(s) 201 or 202); and applying cathodes to each of the first and second sub-pixel regions of the deposited organic material (Fig. 5, a dotted line vs a solid line).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide MAEDA with each of the first and second sub-pixel regions respectively comprising a respective first static corner at a same position relative to a respective sub-pixel center and a respective first dynamic corner, wherein the position of each first dynamic corner is located such that a shape of the first sub-pixel region is different from the shape of the second sub-pixel region; and applying cathodes to each of the first and second sub-pixel regions of the deposited organic material as taught by Meng in order to improve the resolution at the display region corresponding to the camera (para. 0038) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 20, MAEDA & Meng disclose that said depositing organic material comprises: arranging the first mask over the semiconductor material;
depositing, on the first and second anodes 211, a first color of the organic material utilizing the first mask M1;
arranging a second mask M2 over the semiconductor material, the second mask comprising a third sub-pixel region 23G & 23R; and depositing, on a third anode, a second color of the organic material utilizing the second mask (MAEDA, Fig. 10A-10G).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16, 18, & 21 are allowed.
Claims 2, 3, & 4 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that “Meng fails to teach or suggest that a first a first display portion comprising a first sub- pixel and a second sub-pixel, each of the first and second sub-pixels including: a respective first static corner at a same position relative to a respective sub-pixel center as a regular configuration of the respective sub-pixel, and a respective first dynamic corner in a different position with respect to the respective sub-pixel center as the regular configuration of the respective sub-pixel".
However, Meng suggest that a first pixel 100 and a second pixel 100 in Fig. 2 (note: a plurality of unit pixel of element 100 are in a display panel), and a first static comer 100 at a same position relative to a respective sub-pixel center (a center of first pixel is the same as a first static corner) and a respective first dynamic corner can be 201 or 202 with different center from the unit pixel of element 100.
Also, applicant fails to specify that “regular configuration of the respective sub pixel” therefore, a regular configuration of the respective sub pixel can be interpreted as an element 201 or 202.
Applicant fails to distinguish static corner from sub-pixel and diffusate how first sub-pixel from a first static corner.
Meng discloses that sub-pixel 100 can be the same as the first static corner 100.
Furthermore, Applicant fails to specify that a meaning of a static corner and a dynamic corner.
However, Meng suggests that a pixel and a static corner are considered as the same 100 in Fig. 3 and illuminating 201 or 202 that will change a center of pixel from pixel with static corner 100 as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
736
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 5-8, & 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is deemed proper.
In addition, for the rejection of claims 9-11, the prima facie case of obviousness has been met and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is deemed proper.
Conclusion
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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights