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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,390 in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0373264).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims (see for example the similar language used in the patent claims and the claims of the instant application), however the patent claims do not specifically recite
the third light emitting unit (a sub-pixel of the third pixel) disposed on the substrate is at least partially overlapped with the first light emitting unit along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Liu et al. however teaches that it known to have a third light emitting region (104C) overlap another light emitting region (104A and 104B, each emitting different colors) (see Figs. 3-5, and para. 0049-0051 and 0057-0058), in order to reduce manufacturing cost and result in huge economic benefits (see para. 0005).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify patent claims, such that it includes a third light emitting unit disposed on the substrate and at least partially overlapped with the first light emitting unit along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, as taught by Liu et al., in order to reduce manufacturing cost and result in huge economic benefits, as suggested by Liu et al. in para. 0005.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable in view of the prior art of record. However, it should be noted that a new search and further consideration will be conducted after the response by the applicant to this office correspondence, to determine the allowability of the claims.
Claims 2-10 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:
Regarding claim 1-10
The prior art of record, including the closest prior art Jepsen et al. (US 2015/0097837) noted below, taken alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the display device having the combination of recited elements and structure, along with having the further limitations which includes,
a third light emitting unit disposed on the substrate and at least partially overlapped with the first light emitting unit along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the third light emitting unit emits a light with the first color, wherein the substrate has an edge extending along the first direction, wherein along the second direction, a distance between the first light emitting unit and the edge is less than a distance between the third light emitting unit and the edge, wherein a lighting region of the first light emitting unit is less than a lighting region of the third light emitting unit, as set forth in claims 1-10.
It should be noted, that even though Jepson et al. discloses the display device substantially as claimed, as described below, there is no teaching or description presented by the prior art of record to have the limitations as recite in claims 1-10, noted above.
Further, it is does not seem that the limitations as recited by the claims would be obvious, by one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, by the teaching of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jepsen et al. (US 2015/0097837), shows the display device, comprising:
a substrate having an edge (taken to be the periphery of the display screen 200), wherein the edge extends along a first direction (see para. 0019-0020); and
a plurality of pixels (400) disposed on the substrate, wherein the plurality of pixels include a first pixel closest to the edge (taken to the peripheral pixel 410/510) and a second pixel adjacent to the first pixel (taken to be the core pixel 405/505), the first pixel and the second pixel are arranged along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and any one of the first pixel and the second pixel includes a plurality of sub-pixels arranged along the first direction (see Figs. 4A-6B),
wherein a width of the first pixel is less than a width of the second pixel in the second direction (see Figs. 4A-6B and para. 0028).
Jepsen et al. further shows, wherein a distance between the first pixel and the edge is less than a distance between the second pixel and the first pixel in the second direction (taken to be the core separation pitch and peripheral separation pitch are different, see Figs. 5A-6B and para. 0028 and 0030).
Huang et al. (US 2018/0122288), shows a display device having a plurality of pixels wherein the pixels are formed of different sizes (see the abstract, Figs. 2, 7 and 9, and para. 0040-0047).
Song et al. (US 2017/0169779), shows a display device having a plurality of pixels wherein the pixels are formed of different sizes (see the abstract, Figs. 1-3 and para. 0029-0040).
Kazmierski et al. (US 2016/0093244), shows a tiled display device having a plurality of pixels wherein the pixels are formed of different sizes (see the abstract, Figs. 3-5C and para. 0013-0022).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD N EDUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. 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.
/MUHAMMAD N. EDUN/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2629
/MUHAMMAD N EDUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629