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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In view of the amendment to independent claim 1, a new reference of Tomizawa (US Pub. 2009/0167657 A1) is applied to a new ground of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurumisawa (US Pub. 2005/0264587 A1) in view of Tomizawa (US Pub. 2009/0167657 A1).
Regarding claim 1; Kurumisawa teaches a display panel (Fig.8, a display panel 14) comprising a plurality of pixel units (Fig.2C, the display panel comprises a plurality of black-and-white pixels), wherein each of the plurality of pixel units consists of two sub-pixels (Fig.2C, each of black-and-white pixel consists of two sub-pixels), and colors of the two sub-pixels of each of the at least one pixel unit are in a complementary color relationship (Fig.2C, para. [0010 and 0057], Kurumisawa discloses a pixel arrangement comprising a plurality of black-and-white pixels. A first black-and-white pixel comprises a red (R) sub-pixel and a cyan © sub-pixel. A second black-and-white pixel comprises a green (G) sub-pixel and a magenta (M) sub-pixel. A third black-and-white pixel comprises a blue (B) sub-pixel and a yellow (YL) sub-pixel).
PNG
media_image1.png
190
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig.2C of Kurumisawa reproduced)
Kurumisawa does not teach an area ratio of the two sub-pixels in each of the plurality of pixel units is larger than 1:1 and less than or equal to 3:1.
Tomizawa teaches an area ratio of the two complementary-color sub-pixels is larger than 1:1 and less than or equal to 3:1 (Fig. 24, para. [0207], a ratio of area of yellow, cyan, and magenta sub-pixels to that of red, green, and blue sub-pixels may be 1:3. In other words, an area ratio of red, green, and blue sub-pixels to that of cyan, magenta, and yellow sub-pixels may be 3 to 1).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display panel of Kurumisawa to including the teaching of Tomizawa of providing a display panel having an area ratio of red, green, and blue sub-pixels to that of cyan, magenta, and yellow sub-pixels being 3:1. The motivation would have been in order to reduce a size of a pixel unit while maintaining light emission efficiency (i.e., a luminance of cyan is greater than red, a luminance of yellow is greater than blue, and a luminance of magenta is greater than green).
Regarding claim 2; Kurumisawa in view of Tomizawa teaches the display panel of claim 1 as discussed above. Kurumisawa further teaches each of the plurality of pixel units is configured to produce a white point when the two sub-pixels are together set to a first state (Fig.3, para. [0056], when all gray-scale values of R and C are set to 0, white is displayed).
Regarding claim 3; Kurumisawa in view of Tomizawa teaches the display panel of claim 2 as discussed above. Kurumisawa further teaches each of the plurality of pixel units is configured to produce a black point when the two sub-pixels are together set to a second state (Fig.3, para. [0056], when all gray-scale values of R and C are set to 256, black is displayed).
Regarding claim 4; Kurumisawa in view of Tomizawa teaches the display panel of claim 3 as discussed above. Kurumisawa further teaches each of the plurality of pixel units is configured to produce a color point associated with one of the two sub-pixels when the one of the two sub-pixels is set to the first state and the other one of the two sub-pixels is set to the second state (It is understood that a complementary color (e.g., cyan) is a mixture of two primary colors (e.g., blue and green). Therefore, in a black-and-white pixel, a color image would be generated when grayscales of two sub-pixels are different. For example, if grayscale of red is 256 and grayscale of cyan is zero; then the first black-and-white pixel would display a red color).
Regarding claim 5; Kurumisawa in view of Tomizawa teaches the display panel of claim 1 as discussed above. Kurumisawa further teaches each of the plurality of pixel units is independently driven (para. [0010], three black-and-white pixels perform independently black-and-white display).
Regarding claim 6; Kurumisawa in view of Tomizawa teaches the display panel of claim 1 as discussed above. Kurumisawa further teaches each of the plurality of pixel units has a centrally-symmetric shape (see Fig.2C, each black-and-white pixel has a rectangular shape).
Regarding claim 10; Kurumisawa in view of Tomizawa teaches the display panel of claim 1 as discussed above. Kurumisawa further teaches the plurality of pixel units comprise at least two different types of pixel units, which are different from one another at least in the colors of the respective sub-pixels (see Fig.2C, there are three types of black-and-white pixels: R-C, G-M, and B-YL).
Regarding claim 21; Kurumisawa in view of Tomizawa teaches a display device comprising: a display panel comprising a plurality of pixel units (Kurumisawa, an LCD display panel 14, Fig.4), wherein each of the plurality of pixel units consists of two sub-pixels, and colors of the two sub-pixels of each of the at least one pixel unit are in a complementary color relationship, wherein an area ratio of the two sub-pixels in each of the plurality of pixel units is larger than 1:1, and less than or equal to 3:1; a memory configured to store a software program (Kurumisawa, a program memory 31, Fig.9); and a processor (Kurumisawa, a CPU 30, Fig.9) configured to execute the software program (Kurumisawa, para. [0079]) and to operate the display panel (similar to the analysis of claim 1 above).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurumisawa (US Pub. 2005/0264587 A1) in view of Tomizawa (US Pub. 2009/0167657 A1) as applied to claim 6 above; further in view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 2020/0374493 A1).
Regarding claim 7; Kurumisawa in view of Tomizawa teaches the display panel of claim 6 as discussed above. Kurumisawa does not teach each of the plurality of pixel units is square-shaped.
Jang teaches each of the plurality of pixel units is square-shaped (Fig.5, each of pixel units (e.g., 551a and 551b) is a square shaped).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Kurumisawa to include the pixel arrangement of Jang of providing a pixel unit comprising two complementary color sub-pixels arranged in horizontal direction such that the pixel unit is a square shape. Accordingly, in the display device of Kurumisawa as modified by Jang, the sub-pixels (e.g., R and C colors) in each black-and-white pixel would be arranged in a horizontal direction. The motivation would have been in order to improve color quality and sharpness; and to obtain a preferred design.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurumisawa (US Pub. 2005/0264587 A1) in view of Tomizawa (US Pub. 2009/0167657 A1) as applied to claim 1 above; further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2022/0158139 A1).
Regarding claim 9; Kurumisawa in view of Tomizawa teaches the display panel of claim 1 as discussed above. Kurumisawa does not teach the area ratio of the two sub-pixels in each of the plurality of pixel units is determined as a function of at least one of reflectance, transmittance, color filter spectrum, color particle spectrum, emission efficiency, power consumption, or life time.
Kim taches the area ratio of the two sub-pixels in each of the plurality of pixel units is determined as a function of at least one of reflectance, transmittance, color filter spectrum, color particle spectrum, emission efficiency, power consumption, or life time (para. [0170 and 0308], a size of each of subpixels SP1 to SP4 may be set based on a resolution, emission efficiency, or image quality. In other words, ratios of size of sub-pixels would be determined based on emission efficiency).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Kurumisawa to include the teaching of Kim of providing sub-pixels in a pixel unit having sizes of emission areas to be based on emission efficiency. Accordingly, the display system of Kurumisawa as modified by Kim would render a pixel unit comprising two complementary color sub-pixels having sizes of emission areas based on emission efficiency. In other words, a ratio of two complementary color sub-pixels would be based on the emission efficiency. The motivation would have been in order to improve the emission efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 11-16 and 22 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: Prior art fails to teach “the plurality of pixel units comprise a plurality of first pixel units and a plurality of second pixel units that are alternately arranged at least in a horizontal direction, wherein two sub-pixels in each of the first pixel units are vertically-adjacent sub-pixels and have a first pair of colors in a complementary color relationship, and wherein two sub-pixels in each of the second pixel units are horizontally-adjacent sub-pixels and have a second pair of colors in a complementary color relationship, the second pair of colors being different from the first pair of colors” as recited in claims 11, 20, and 22.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623