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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed May 22, 2026.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn due to the amendment filed.
Specification
The objection to the abstract of the disclosure has been withdrawn due to the amendment filed.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 12-13 has been withdrawn due to the amendment filed.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chae et al. (US 2021/0210564 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Chae et al. teach a display panel comprising: at least one display part DA1/DA2, comprising a display part (sub-) pixel arrangement (See Figure 5, Pm3/Pa3), comprising a plurality of emissive regions EA1/EA2, each corresponding to a (sub-) pixel Pm3/Pa3, a lateral aspect of each emissive region EA1/EA2 being defined by an intersection of lateral aspects of a plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c; and at least one signal-exchanging part (in DA2), comprising a signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement (See Figure 5, DA2), comprising at least one transmissive region TA and a plurality of emissive regions EA2, each corresponding to a (sub-) pixel Pm3/Pa3, wherein the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement (See Figure 5, DA2) accommodates the at least one transmissive region TA by varying, relative to the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement (See Figure 5, Pm3/Pa3), a lateral extent of at least a first one of the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c corresponding to at least one (sub-) pixel Pm3/Pa3 therein, such that: at least one of: a size, shape, configuration, and orientation, of the lateral extent of the first one of the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c is varied, and the first one of the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c is positioned at an extremity of an intersection of the lateral extent of remaining ones of the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c, and at least one of a size, shape, orientation, and configuration of the (sub-) pixels Pm3/Pa3 in the signal-exchanging part (in DA2) is different from that of the display part (in DA1) (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 2, Chae et al. teach the size of the lateral extent of the first one of the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c being reduced (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 3, Chae et al. teach the shape of the lateral extent of the first one of the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c being one of: rectangular, circular, and triangular (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 4, Chae et al. teach the orientation of the lateral extent of the first one of the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c being rotated by a non-zero angle (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 5, Chae et al. teach the non-zero angle being one of about: 45⁰, 90⁰, and 180⁰ (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 6, Chae et al. teach the intersection of the lateral extent of remaining ones of the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c corresponds to an intersection of the lateral extent of the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c in the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement (See Figure 5, Pm3/Pa3) (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 7, Chae et al. teach the plurality of active emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c comprise: a first electrode 221, a second electrode 223, and at least one semiconducting layer 222a/222b/222c extending therebetween (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 8, Chae et al. teach the first electrode 221 extending between a substrate 100 of the display panel and the second electrode 223 (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 9, Chae et al. teach the first one of the plurality of active emissive region layers 221/222a/222b/222c/223 selected from one of: the first electrode 221, and the second electrode 223 (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 10, Chae et al. teach the lateral extent, of the first one of the plurality of emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c in the display part DA1/DA2, substantially bisects the intersection of the lateral extent of the remaining ones of the emissive region layers (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 11, Chae et al. teach at least one of the plurality of emissive region layers 222a/222b/222c formed by deposition of a corresponding emissive region material (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claims 12-13, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113.
In regard to claim 14, Chae et al. teach the signal-exchanging part (sub-) pixel arrangement (See Figure 5, Pm3/Pa3) varying from the display part (sub-) pixel arrangement (See Figure 5, Pm3/Pa3) due to a difference between the signal-exchanging part (See Figure 5, DA2) and the display part DA1 in at least one of: a size, shape, configuration, and orientation, of the lateral extent of the first electrode 221 (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 15, Chae et al. teach at least one of: a size, shape, configuration, and orientation, of the lateral extent of the first electrode 221 varies between the signal-exchanging part (See Figure 5, DA2) and the display part DA1 by varying the an opening of a pixel definition layer 119 through which a layer surface of the first electrode 221 is exposed (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 16, Chae et al. teach at least one of: a size, shape, configuration, and orientation, of the lateral extent of at least one semiconducting layer (in 222a/222b/222c) being substantially the same between the signal-exchanging part (See Figure 5, DA2) and the display part DA1 (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
In regard to claim 17, Chae et al. teach the size, shape, configuration, and orientation, of the lateral extent of the at least one semiconducting layer (in 222a/222b/222c) being substantially the same between the signal-exchanging part (See Figure 5, DA2) and the display part DA1 (Figures 5-8, pages 3-14, paragraphs [0069]-[0205]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 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 arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to display devices:
Bang et al. (US 2021/0183983 A1) Bok et al. (US 2021/0193769 A1)
Gil (US 2019/0207156 A1) Jeong et al. (US 2021/0216157 A1)
Jeong et al. (US 2022/0107699 A1) Jung et al. (US 2021/0359025 A1)
Lee et al. (US 2022/0045160 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
IMS
June 3, 2026
/IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights