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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each of the pixels" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat "each of the pixels” as ----each of the pixels--.
Claim 1 recites “, each of the pixels including a plurality of subpixels each of which includes a light emitting portion”
It is not clear if each of the pixels includes a light emitting portion or plurality of subpixels includes a light emitting portion or in both.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat the limitation met as long as either each of the pixels or plurality of subpixels includes a light emitting portion.
For the purposes of clarity, the Examiner recommends against using pronouns in claim limitations.
Claim 1, 3 recites the limitation "centers of the own light emitting portions" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat " centers of the own light emitting portions” as -- centers of light emitting portions --.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the color filter that transmits red light" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat "the color filter that transmits red light” as -- a color filter that transmits red light --.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the subpixel configured in a rectangular shape" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat " the subpixel configured in a rectangular shape” as -- a subpixel configured in a rectangular shape --.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as being dependent on Claim 1
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Limitation “the displacement in the arrangement of the color filters vary depending on each of the plurality of subpixels.” Is grammatically inconsistent.
Examiner recommends using proper grammar “the displacement…varies”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Limitation “depending on each columns of the matrix shape.” Is grammatically inconsistent.
Examiner that “each” must be followed by a singular noun.
Claims 9, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Limitation “depending on each rows” Is grammatically inconsistent.
Examiner that “each” must be followed by a singular noun.
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) 1-4 and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A2) as being anticipated by Hinata et al. (US 2022/0158134 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hinata (Fig. 5, 7, 12) discloses a display element comprising:
a pixel array portion in which a plurality of pixels (PX) is arranged, each of the pixels including a plurality of subpixels (SPR, SPB, SPG) each of which includes a light emitting portion (ER) and a color filter (180) that transmits emission light of a predetermined wavelength among pieces of the emission light from the light emitting portion (ER) (Fig. 5, 7, 12), wherein
the plurality of pixels includes the plurality of subpixels (SPR, SPG, SPB) respectively including the color filters (180R, 180G, 180B) corresponding to different wavelengths, and
the pixel array portion includes at least one of the pixels in which the color filters are arranged in a manner of being displaced with respect to centers of the own light emitting portions and the displacement in the arrangement of the color filters vary depending on each of the plurality of subpixels. (“the color filter displacement amount is preferably set within the range from 0 or more to a microlens displacement amount or less not to interfere with light transmission”) Fig. 7
Regarding Claim 2, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 1, wherein
each of the pixels includes a red subpixel (SPR) including a red color filter (180r) that is the color filter that transmits red light, a green subpixel (SPG) including a green color filter (180g) that is the color filter that transmits green light, and a blue subpixel (SPB) including a blue color filter (180b) that is the color filter that transmits blue light.
Regarding Claim 3, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 1, wherein
each of the pixels includes the plurality of subpixels each of which further includes an on-chip lens (ML) that collects the emission light, and the pixel array portion includes at least one of the pixels in which the on-chip lenses (ML) are arranged in a manner of being displaced with respect to the centers of the own light emitting portions (ER) and the displacement in the arrangement of the on-chip lenses vary depending on each of the plurality of subpixels. [0045-0048, 0069-0078]
Regarding Claim 4, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 1, wherein
each of the pixels has a substantially square shape in plan view. [“square arrangement” 0053, 0105].
Regarding Claim 7, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 3, wherein
the pixels are arranged in a matrix shape in the pixel array portion, and each of the pixels includes a second subpixel (one of SPR, SPG, SPB) in which the on-chip lens (ML) is arranged in a manner of being displaced in any of row and column directions of the matrix shape [0060-0062]. (See Fig. 6, 7)
Regarding Claim 8, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 7, wherein
the pixels include the second subpixels (one of SPR, SPG, SPB) in which the on-chip lenses (ML) are arranged in a manner of being displaced in different directions depending on each columns of the matrix shape. [0062-0070] (Fig. 6, 7)
Regarding Claim 9, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 7, wherein
the pixels include the second subpixels (one of SPR, SPG, SPB) in which the on-chip lenses (ML) are arranged in a manner of being displaced in different directions depending on each rows of the matrix shape. [0062-0070] (Fig. 6, 7)
Regarding Claim 10, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 7, wherein
each of the pixels includes the second subpixel including a plurality of the on-chip lenses. (Fig. 8B)
Regarding Claim 11, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 10, wherein
each of the pixels includes the second subpixel (one of SPR, SPG, SPB) in which the plurality of on-chip lenses is arranged in a manner of being displaced in any of the row and column directions of the matrix shape. [0062-0070] (Fig. 6-8)
Regarding Claim 12, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 11, wherein
the pixels include the second subpixels in which the plurality of on-chip lenses is arranged in a manner of being displaced in different directions depending on each columns of the matrix shape. [0062-0070] (Fig. 6-8)
Regarding Claim 13, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 11, wherein
the pixels include the second subpixels in which the plurality of on-chip lenses is arranged in a manner of being displaced in different directions depending on each rows of the matrix shape. [0062-0070] (Fig. 6-8)
Regarding Claim 14, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 11, wherein
the pixels include the second subpixels in which the plurality of on-chip lenses is arranged in a manner of being displaced in different row directions of the matrix shape. [0062-0070] (Fig. 6-8)
Regarding Claim 15, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 4, wherein
the pixels include the subpixels configured in a rectangular shape. [“square arrangement” 0053, 0105].
Regarding Claim 16, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 1, wherein each of the pixels has a substantially hexagonal shape in plan view. (Fig. 5, 6)
Regarding Claim 17, Hinata discloses the display device comprising:
a display element including a pixel array portion in which a plurality of pixels (PX) is arranged, each of the pixels including a plurality of subpixels (SPR, SPB, SPG) each of which includes a light emitting portion (ER) and a color filter (180) that transmits emission light of a predetermined wavelength among pieces of the emission light from the light emitting portion (ER) (Fig. 5, 7, 12), in which
the plurality of pixels (PX) includes the plurality of subpixels (SPR, SPB, SPG) respectively including the color filters (180R, 180G, 180B) corresponding to different wavelengths, and
the pixel array portion includes at least one of the pixels in which the color filters are arranged in a manner of being displaced with respect to centers of the own light emitting portions and the displacement in the arrangement of the color filters vary depending on each of the plurality of subpixels; (“the color filter displacement amount is preferably set within the range from 0 or more to a microlens displacement amount or less not to interfere with light transmission”) Fig. 7 and
a drive circuit (“drive circuit”) that drives the subpixels. [0083]
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinata et al. (US 2022/0158134 A1) in view of Motoyama et al. ( JP 2019133816 A published 08/08/2019; hereinafter for the purposes of clarity all figure and paragraph references will US 2021/0057678 A1) Sano et al. (US 2022/0238845 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hinata discloses the display element according to claim 4, wherein
each of the pixels (PX) includes a second subpixel (one of SPR, SPG, SPB)
Hinata does not explicitly disclose each of the pixels includes a second subpixel that is the subpixel configured in a rectangular shape in contact with three sides including one side of the substantially square shape.
Motoyama (Fig. 14) discloses a second subpixel (10B) that is the subpixel configured in a rectangular shape in contact with three sides including one side of the substantially square shape. (See Fig. 14)
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 display element in Hinata in view of Motoyama such that each of the pixels includes a second subpixel that is the subpixel configured in a rectangular shape in contact with three sides including one side of the substantially square shape in order to configure light emission element to emit the white light [0132] and a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04)
Regarding Claim 6, Hinata in view of Motoyama discloses the display element according to claim 5, wherein
the pixels are arranged in a matrix shape in the pixel array portion (Hinata Fig. 5, 6A,8) (Fig. 14. 15 Motoyama), and
Hinata in view of Motoyama does not explicitly disclose the pixels are configured in a shape in which the second subpixels are adjacent between the pixels adjacent in a column direction of the matrix shape.
However, 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 display element in Hinata in view of Motoyama such that the pixels are configured in a shape in which the second subpixels are adjacent between the pixels adjacent in a column direction of the matrix shape in order to configure light emission element to emit the white light [0132] and a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sano et al. (US 2022/0238845 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights