DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/5/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 16-17 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 16 recites the limitation “the first hypotenuse” (singular form) in line 7 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claim 2 previously introduces “first hypotenuses” (plural form) in lines 2-3 of the claim, which claim 16 depends from, and thus it is unclear which specific “first hypotenuse” element is being referenced in the limitation “the first hypotenuse” in line 7 of the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the second hypotenuse” (singular form) in line 8 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because the claim previously introduces “second hypotenuses” (plural form) in line 3 of the claim, and thus it is unclear which specific “second hypotenuse” element is being referenced in the limitation “the second hypotenuse” in line 8 of the claim.
Note dependent claim 17 necessarily inherits the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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 1-3, 5-6, 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yue et al. (US 2022/0069031 A1, hereinafter “Yue”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 18 of Yue discloses a pixel arrangement structure, comprising first sub-pixels 11 (“sub-pixel”- ¶0130), second sub-pixels 12 (“sub-pixel”- ¶0130), and third sub-pixels 13 (“sub-pixel”- ¶0130), wherein:
two first sub-pixels 11 arranged at opposite positions and two second sub-pixels 12 arranged at opposite positions form a first virtual trapezoid 22 (“virtual trapezoid”- ¶0062), wherein centers of the two first sub-pixels 11 and centers of the two second sub-pixels 12 are respectively located on vertices of the first virtual trapezoid 22, and one corresponding third sub-pixel 13 is located inside the first virtual trapezoid 22;
the third sub-pixel 13 includes a first side (i.e., the top left side of 13) and a second side (i.e., the bottom right side of 13) respectively adjacent to the two first sub-pixels 11, and a third side (i.e., the bottom left side of 13) and a fourth side (i.e., the top right side of 13) respectively adjacent to the second sub-pixels 12; and
a length of the first side is not equal to a length of the second side, and/or, a length of the third side is not equal to a length of the fourth side.
Regarding claim 2, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
the first virtual trapezoid 22 includes a first short side 223 (“short side”- ¶0082), a first long side 221 (“long side”- ¶0082) and two first hypotenuses;
the first short side 223 is parallel to the first long side 221;
the first side is adjacent to one first sub-pixel 11 on the first short side;
the second side is adjacent to one first sub-pixel 11 on the first long side; and
the length of the first side is larger than the length of the second side.
Regarding claim 3, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
a ratio of the length of the first side to the length of the second side is larger than 1 and less than or equal to 15 (based on what is shown in Fig. 18). A figure teaches everything it shows. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 5, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
the first virtual trapezoid includes a first short side 223 (“short side”- ¶0082), a first long side 221 (“long side”- ¶0082) and two first hypotenuses;
the first short side is parallel to the first long side;
the third side is adjacent to one second sub-pixel 12 located on the first short side;
the fourth side is adjacent to one second sub-pixel 12 on the first long side; and
the length of the third side is longer than the length of the fourth side.
Regarding claim 6, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
a ratio of the length of the third side to the length of the fourth side is larger than 1 and less than or equal to 5 (based on what is shown in Fig. 18). A figure teaches everything it shows. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 14, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
one first sub-pixel 11 located on the first short side 223 has a first sub-side adjacent to the third sub-pixel 13, wherein the first side is parallel to the first sub-side;
one first sub-pixel 11 located on the first long side 221 has a second sub-side adjacent to the third sub-pixel 13, wherein the second side is parallel to the second sub-side;
one second sub-pixel 12 located on the first short side 223 has a third sub-side adjacent to the third sub-pixel 13, wherein the third side is parallel to the third sub-side; and
one second sub-pixel 12 located on the first long side 221 has a fourth sub-side adjacent to the third sub-pixel 13, wherein the fourth side is parallel to the fourth sub-side.
Regarding claim 15, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
a plurality of third sub-pixels 13 form a second virtual trapezoid 21 (“virtual trapezoid”- ¶0062), wherein centers of the plurality of third sub-pixels 13 are located at vertices of the second virtual trapezoid 21 and one corresponding first sub-pixel 12 is located inside the second virtual trapezoid 21.
Regarding claim 18, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
a light-emitting area of one third sub-pixel 13 (which corresponds to the area of 13) is smaller than a light-emitting area of one first sub-pixel 11 (which corresponds to the area of 11), and the light-emitting area of the third sub-pixel 13 is smaller than a light-emitting area of one second sub-pixel 12 (which corresponds to the area of 12).
Regarding independent claim 19, Figure 18 of Yue discloses a display panel, comprising a pixel arrangement structure, wherein:
the pixel arrangement structure includes first sub-pixels 11 (“sub-pixel”- ¶0130), second sub-pixels 12 (“sub-pixel”- ¶0130), and third sub-pixels 13 (“sub-pixel”- ¶0130):
two first sub-pixels 11 arranged at opposite positions and two second sub-pixels 12 arranged at opposite positions form a first virtual trapezoid 22 (“virtual trapezoid”- ¶0062), wherein centers of the two first sub-pixels 11 and centers of the two second sub-pixels 12 are respectively located on vertices of the first virtual trapezoid 22, and one corresponding third sub-pixel 13 is located inside the first virtual trapezoid 22;
the third sub-pixel 13 includes a first side (i.e., the top left side of 13) and a second side (i.e., the bottom right side of 13) respectively adjacent to the two first sub-pixels 11, and a third side (i.e., the bottom left side of 13) and a fourth side (i.e., the top right side of 13) respectively adjacent to the second sub-pixels 12; and
a length of the first side is not equal to a length of the second side, and/or, a length of the third side is not equal to a length of the fourth side.
Regarding independent claim 20, Figure 18 of Yue discloses a display device, comprising a display panel, wherein:
the display panel includes a pixel arrangement structure:
the pixel arrangement structure includes first sub-pixels 11 (“sub-pixel”- ¶0130), second sub-pixels 12 (“sub-pixel”- ¶0130), and third sub-pixels 13 (“sub-pixel”- ¶0130):
two first sub-pixels 11 arranged at opposite positions and two second sub-pixels 12 arranged at opposite positions form a first virtual trapezoid 22 (“virtual trapezoid”- ¶0062), wherein centers of the two first sub-pixels 11 and centers of the two second sub-pixels 12 are respectively located on vertices of the first virtual trapezoid 22, and one corresponding third sub-pixel 13 is located inside the first virtual trapezoid 22;
the third sub-pixel 13 includes a first side (i.e., the top left side of 13) and a second side (i.e., the bottom right side of 13) respectively adjacent to the two first sub-pixels 11, and a third side (i.e., the bottom left side of 13) and a fourth side (i.e., the top right side of 13) respectively adjacent to the second sub-pixels 12; and
a length of the first side is not equal to a length of the second side, and/or, a length of the third side is not equal to a length of the fourth side.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Yue.
Regarding claim 4, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
a vertical distance between the third side and the fourth side is a first distance, and a ratio of the length of the second side to the first distance.
Yue does not expressly disclose wherein the ratio of the length of the second side to the first distance is larger than or equal to 1/10 and less than or equal to ⅓.
However, it would have been obvious to form the ratio of the length of the second side to the first distance within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 7, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
a vertical distance between the first side and the second side is a second distance, and a ratio of the length of the fourth side to the second distance.
Yue does not expressly disclose wherein the ratio of the length of the fourth side to the second distance is larger than or equal to 1/2.5 and less than or equal to 1/1.5.
However, it would have been obvious to form the ratio of the length of the fourth side to the second distance within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 8, Figure 18 of Yue discloses wherein:
a vertical distance between the first side and the second side is a second distance;
a vertical distance between the third side and the fourth side is a first distance; and
a ratio of the first distance to the second distance is larger than or equal to 1/1.8, and smaller than or equal to 1/1.5.
Yue does not expressly disclose wherein the ratio of the first distance to the second distance is larger than or equal to 1/1.8, and smaller than or equal to 1/1.5.
However, it would have been obvious to form the ratio of the first distance to the second distance within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 16, Figure 18 of Yue discloses
wherein:
the second virtual trapezoid 21 includes a second short side, a second long side and two second hypotenuses;
the second short side is parallel to the second long side;
the first virtual trapezoid 22 and the second virtual trapezoid 21 are both isosceles trapezoids (¶0097); and
the first long side 221 and the first hypotenuse have a first included angle, and the second long side and the second hypotenuse have a second included angle.
Yu does not expressly disclose wherein the second included angle is larger than the first included angle.
However, it would have been obvious to form the first and second included angles such that the second included angle is larger than the first included angle, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 17, Yue does not expressly disclose wherein the first included angle is larger than or equal to 82° and less than or equal to 88°, and the second included angle is larger than or equal to 83° and less than or equal to 89°; wherein, the second included angle is larger than or equal to the first included angle and difference between the first included angle and the second included angle is larger than or equal to 1° and less than or equal to 2°.
However, it would have been obvious to form the first and second included angles within the claimed ranges such that the second included angle is larger than or equal to the first included angle and a difference between the first included angle and the second included angle is within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 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.
Regarding claim 9 (which claims 10-13 depend from), the prior art of record including Yue, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein: the third sub-pixel further includes a fifth side and a sixth side; the fifth side is close to the first short side and parallel to the first short side; the sixth side is close to the first long side and parallel to the first long side; and a length of the fifth side is smaller than a length of the sixth side”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu et al. (US 2022/0310711 A1), which discloses a pixel arrangement structure comprising first and second pixels, and a third pixel arranged with one another to form a virtual trapezoid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights