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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, a more descriptive title could be, “Display Device With Groups of Pixels in Different Columns Connected to the Same Data Line”.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in each of lines 9, 11, 14, and 16, it appears “group pixels” should read “group of pixels”;
In claim 16, in each of lines 6, 7, 8 , 9 and 10, it appears “group pixels” should read “group of pixels”; and
Claims 2-15 and 17-20 inherit the objections to claim 1 or 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 2, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bei et al. (US 2019/0051670 A1; hereinafter, ‘Bei”) in view of Song et al. (US 2016/0055800 A1; hereinafter, “Song”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2:
Bei discloses (in Figs. 3 and 14) an electronic device, comprising:
a display panel 300 (Fig. 14 and [0095]) comprising a first area 203 (Fig. 3 and [0044]) in which a first pixel column, a second pixel column, a third pixel column, and a fourth pixel column are arranged (i.e., any four columns comprising sub-pixels 206 in Fig. 3 and [0046]) and a second area 2023 (Fig. 3 and [0044]) which cuts off the first to fourth pixel columns and has a higher light transmittance than the first area (i.e., area 2023 is an opening for a camera, e.g., note equivalent area 101 in Fig. 2 and [0033]); and
an electronic optical module (e.g., a camera [0033), wherein area 101 in Fig. 2 is equivalent to area 2023 in Fig. 3) under the display panel and overlapping the second area 2023,
Bei does not disclose details regarding how groups of pixels are connected to data lines; accordingly, Bei does not disclose the lined-through limitations.
Song teaches, in a display device, increase in manufacturing cost [0008] can be mitigated by connecting pixels of different columns to a same data line [0009]. Song discloses (in Fig. 1):
all pixels (P3 in the second column from the left side of Fig. 1) of the first pixel column are electrically connected to a first data line DL2,
a first group of pixels of the second pixel column (P2 in the first column from the left side of Fig. 1) are electrically connected to the first data line DL2,
a second group of pixels of the second pixel column (P1 in the first column on the left side of Fig. 1) are electrically connected to a second data line DL1,
all pixels (P3 in the fourth column from the left side of Fig. 1) of the third pixel column are electrically connected to a third data line DL3,
a first group of pixels (P1 in the fifth column from the left side of Fig. 1) of the fourth pixel column are electrically connected to the third data line DL3, and
a second group of pixels (P2 in the fifth column from the left side of Fig. 1) of the fourth pixel column are electrically connected to a fourth data line DL4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bei, by connecting pixels in different columns to a same data line, because the modification could reduce manufacturing cost.
Regarding claims 14 and 15:
re claim 14, Bei discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein, in a plan view, the second area 2023 (Fig. 3) is surrounded by the first area 203;
re claim 15, Song discloses the pixels of the first pixel column (P3 in the second column from the left side of Fig. 1) and the first group pixels (P2 in the first column from the left side of Fig. 1) of the second pixel column comprise a first type of pixels configured to provide a first color (P3) and a second type of pixels configured to provide a second color (P2), and a pixel arrangement of the of the first pixel column and a pixel arrangement of the first group pixels are different from each other (Fig. 1, wherein “P3” is arranged differently from “P2”).
Regarding claims 16 and 18:
These claims are similar to claims 1 and 2, expect that they are broader in scope, and all pertinent limitations in these claims are essentially recited in claims 1 and 2; accordingly, the current claims are deemed obvious over Bei (in view of Song) for reasons similar to that stated hereinbefore with respect claims 1 and 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13, 17, 19 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 is allowed because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the limitations in this claim (when combined with claim 1);
Claims 4-6 are allowed because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the limitations in claim 4 (when combined with claim 1) and claims 5-6 depend from claim 4;
Claim 7 is allowed because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the limitations in this claim (when combined with claim 1);
Claims 8-13 are allowed because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the limitations in claim 8 (when combined with claim 1) and claims 9-13 depend from claim 8;
Claim 17 is allowed because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the limitations in this claim (when combined with claim 16); and
Claims 19-20 are allowed because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the limitations in claim 19 (when combined with claim 16) and claim 20 depends from claim 4;
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights