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) 55,65,66,77,78,87-90 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Liu et al., (Liu) CN112436032A.
Regarding claim 55, Liu discloses and shows in FIG. 1-7, a display panel (abstract; figs.1-7) comprising at least one display part comprising a display part (sub-) pixel arrangement comprising a plurality of emissive regions (12,14,16) each corresponding to a (sub-) pixel (paras.0009-0011), and at least one signal- exchanging part comprising a signal exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement (paras.0006, 0053) comprising at least one transmissive region (paras.0011, 0059-0062) and a plurality of emissive regions (para.0058) each corresponding to a (sub-) pixel, wherein the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement accommodates the at least one transmissive region by varying from the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement in at least one feature selected from: at least one of a size, shape, configuration, and orientation of at least one (sub-) pixel therein (paras.0050, 0056-0057, 0066-0067); a pixel density (para.0050); and a pitch of the (sub-) pixels therein (paras.0004 and 0089).
Regarding claim 65, Liu discloses and shows in FIG. 1-7, a display panel, wherein the at least one feature is at least one of a size, shape, configuration, and the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement (12,14,16) and the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement have in common, a pixel density [0050] of the at least one (sub-) pixels therein.
Regarding claim 66, Liu discloses and shows in FIG. 1-7, a display panel, wherein the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement (12,14,16) and the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement have in common, a pitch [0076] of the at least one (sub-) pixels therein.
Regarding claim 77, Liu discloses and shows in FIG. 1-7, a display panel, wherein the at least one feature is a pixel density [0050], and the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement and the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement have in common, at least one of a size, shape, configuration, orientation, and pitch of at least one (sub-) pixel therein [0056-0057, 0066-0067, 0089].
Regarding claim 78, Liu discloses and shows in FIG. 1-7, a display panel wherein the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement and the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement have in common, a pitch [0076] of the at least one (sub-) pixels therein.
Regarding claim 87, Liu discloses and shows in FIG. 1-7, a display panel, wherein the at least one feature is a pitch [0076] and a pitch of the (sub-) pixels in the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement is less than a pitch of the (sub-) pixels in the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement [0004, 0089].
Regarding claim 88, Liu discloses and shows in FIG. 1-7, a display panel, wherein the at least one feature comprises a plurality of the features [0009-0011].
Regarding claim 89, Liu discloses and shows in FIG. 1-7, a display panel, further comprising at least one transition region (shown between 30,40,50,60, FIG. 7)[0066, 0104] disposed between the display part and the signal-exchanging part, comprising a transition region (sub-) pixel arrangement comprising a plurality of emissive regions each corresponding to a (sub-) pixel, wherein the transition region (sub-) pixel (12,14,16),arrangement varies from both the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement and the signal-exchanging (sub-) pixel arrangement in the at least one feature, such that the interposition of the at least one transition region therebetween reduces a visually perceived difference therebetween (variation shown in the fig. 1-7)[0066, 0082].
Regarding claim 90, Liu discloses and shows in FIG. 1-7, a display panel, wherein the at least one transition region comprises at least one transmissive region (shown between 30,40,50,60, FIG. 7) [0066, 0104], [0066, 0082].
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) 56-64,67,74-76,79-86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 55,65,66,77,78,87-90, and further in view of Helander et al., (Helander) WO 2020/261191.
Regarding claims 56,57, Liu shows in FIG. 1-7, and discloses a display device having transmissive regions (12,14,16).
Liu differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein a separation between a boundary of the at least one transmissive region and a boundary of a sub-pixel proximate thereto is one of at least about: 5 microns, 6 microns, 8 microns, 10 microns, 11 microns, and 12 microns; wherein a size of each transmissive region is at least 10 microns.
Helander discloses [0029-0032] and shows in FIG. 5A-5I, a device wherein a separation between a boundary of the at least one transmissive region and a boundary of a sub-pixel proximate thereto is one of at least about: 5 microns, 6 microns, 8 microns, 10 microns, 11 microns, and 12 microns; wherein a size of each transmissive region is at least 10 microns [0032].
Helander is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Liu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Helander in the device of Liu because it will provide an improved mechanism for providing transparency through the device while facilitating mitigation of interference by the diffraction pattern [0007].
As for the values of the boundary and the size of the transmissive region, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular values. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 58, Liu shows in FIG. 1-7, and discloses a display device having emissive regions (12,14,16).
Liu differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a display panel wherein a total combined aperture ratio of all of the emissive regions and transmissive regions in the signal-exchanging part is one of no more than about: 60%, 55%, 50%, 45%, and 40%.
Helander discloses and shows in FIG. 4, a display panel wherein a total combined aperture ratio of all of the emissive regions and transmissive regions in the signal-exchanging part is one of no more than about: 60%, 55%, 50%, 45%, and 40% [00121, 00122, 00161].
Helander is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Liu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Helander in the device of Liu because it will provide an improved mechanism for providing transparency through the device while facilitating mitigation of interference by the diffraction pattern [0007].
As for the values of the aperture ratio, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular values. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 59-61, Liu shows in FIG. 1-7, and discloses a display device having transmissive regions (12,14,16).
Liu differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the at least one transmissive region has a boundary defined by a plurality of transmissive boundary segments; wherein the transmissive boundary segments comprise at least one curved segment; wherein a majority of the transmissive boundary segments is substantially parallel to a part of a boundary of an emissive region corresponding to a (sub-) pixel proximate thereto.
Helander discloses a device wherein the at least one transmissive region has a boundary [0029-0032] defined by a plurality of transmissive boundary segments [0042]; wherein the transmissive boundary segments comprise at least one curved segment (boundary 3701 comprises a curved segment)[00180, 00181]; wherein a majority of the transmissive boundary segments is substantially parallel [00129, 00158, 00190] to a part of a boundary of an emissive region corresponding to a (sub-) pixel proximate thereto (Fig.5 shows the transmissive boundary segments that is substantially parallel).
Helander is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Liu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Helander in the device of Liu because it will provide an improved mechanism for providing transparency through the device while facilitating mitigation of interference by the diffraction pattern [0007].
Regarding claims 62-64, Liu shows in FIG. 1-7, and discloses a display device having transmissive regions (12,14,16), and a cathode [0050].
Liu differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the at least one transmissive region is substantially devoid of a cathode material; wherein the cathode material is substantially precluded from nucleating within the at least one transmissive region by depositing a patterning coating within the at least one transmissive region prior to deposition of the cathode material; wherein the cathode material is removed from the at least one transmissive region by laser ablation thereof.
Helander discloses and shows in FIG. 1-6, a device wherein the at least one transmissive region is substantially devoid of a cathode material [0041, 0042]; wherein the cathode material is substantially precluded [0058] from nucleating within the at least one transmissive region by depositing a patterning coating within the at least one transmissive region prior to deposition of the cathode material; wherein the cathode material is removed from the at least one transmissive region by laser ablation [0083] thereof [00169].
Helander is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Liu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Helander in the device of Liu because it will provide an improved mechanism for providing transparency through the device while facilitating mitigation of interference by the diffraction pattern [0007].
Regarding claims 67,74-76,79, Liu shows in FIG. 1-7, and discloses a display device having transmissive regions (12,14,16), and a cathode [0050].
Liu differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein a size of at least one of the (sub-) pixels in the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement is less than a size of corresponding (sub-) pixels in the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement; wherein an aperture ratio of the transmissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of no more than about: 50%, 45%, 40%, 35%, 33%,and 25%; wherein an aperture ratio of the transmissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of at least about: 5%,10%, and 15%; wherein an aperture ratio of all emissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of no more than about: 20%, 15%, and 10%; wherein a pixel density of the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement is less than a pixel density of the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement.
Helander discloses and shows in FIG. 1-6, a device wherein a size of at least one of the (sub-) pixels in the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement is less than a size of corresponding (sub-) pixels in the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement (shown in FIG.2)[0093]; wherein an aperture ratio [0046] of the transmissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of no more than about: 50%, 45%, 40%, 35%, 33%,and 25%; wherein an aperture ratio [0046, 00121, 00122, 00161] of the transmissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of at least about: 5%,10%, and 15%; wherein an aperture ratio of all emissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of no more than about: 20%, 15%, and 10%; wherein a pixel density of the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement is less than a pixel density of the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement [0046].
Helander is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Liu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Helander in the device of Liu because it will provide an improved mechanism for providing transparency through the device while facilitating mitigation of interference by the diffraction pattern [0007].
As for the values of the aperture ratio, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular values. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 80-86, Liu shows in FIG. 1-7, and discloses a display device having sub-pixel [0009-0011].
Liu differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein at least one sub-pixel of at least one pixel corresponding to a sub-pixel of a pixel in the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement is omitted in the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement; wherein the omitted sub-pixels are chosen to maximize a size of at least one void formed thereby; wherein a pixel density in the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement is one of: 50%, 62.5%, and 75% of a pixel density in the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement; wherein at least one transmissive region is disposed in at least one void formed by omitting at least one sub-pixel of at least one pixel in the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement; wherein an aperture ratio of the transmissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of between about: 15-40%, 20-40%,15-35%, and 20-35%; wherein an aperture ratio of the transmissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of at least about: 5%,10%, and 15%; wherein an aperture ratio of all emissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is between about: 12-25%.
Helander discloses and shows in FIG. 1-6, a device wherein at least one sub-pixel of at least one pixel corresponding to a sub-pixel of a pixel in the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement is omitted in the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement; wherein the omitted (1910 omitted)[00184] sub-pixels are chosen to maximize a size of at least one void (opening 3980)[00168] formed thereby; wherein a pixel density [0082] in the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement is one of: 50%, 62.5%, and 75% of a pixel density in the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement; wherein at least one transmissive region is disposed in at least one void [00168] formed by omitting at least one sub-pixel of at least one pixel in the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement; wherein an aperture ratio of the transmissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of between about: 15-40%, 20-40%,15-35%, and 20-35%; wherein an aperture ratio [00169] of the transmissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is one of at least about: 5%,10%, and 15%; wherein an aperture ratio of all emissive regions of the signal-exchanging part is between about: 12-25% [00170].
Helander is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Liu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Helander in the device of Liu because it will provide an improved mechanism for providing transparency through the device while facilitating mitigation of interference by the diffraction pattern [0007].
As for the values of the pixel density and the aperture ratio, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular values. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 68-73 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 B 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893