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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein the first-pixel driving circuit overlaps the first second-type light-emitting element, the first first-type light-emitting element, the second second-type light-emitting element, and the second first-type light-emitting element.” [claim 5], “wherein the second-pixel driving circuit overlaps the first second-type light-emitting element, the first first-type light- emitting element, the second second-type light-emitting element, and the second first- type light-emitting element.” [claim 6], “wherein the second-pixel driving circuit further overlaps the third second-type light-emitting element and the third first- type light-emitting element.” [claim 7], & “wherein the third-pixel driving circuit overlaps the third second-type light-emitting element and the third first-type light- emitting element.” [claim 8] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to the drawings, the Applicant argues [Remarks: pg. 8, last para. – pg. 9, last para.], that as figure 5 of the instant application supports the subject matter of claims 5-8.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
In claims 5-8, the claims claim a pixel circuit. Figure 5 of the instant application does not actually show pixel circuits [a transistor or capacitor, for example], only areas corresponding to pixel circuits. The actual pixel circuitry could be placed such that the circuitry of the pixel circuits do not overlap the corresponding claimed light-emitting elements.
Thus, the objection to the drawings is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues [Remarks: pg. 10, last para. – pg. 11, 4th para.], that Sumida fails to teach the amended claim limitation.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “In other words, claim 1 defines an arrangement in which four light-emitting elements arranged in the first direction and two light-emitting elements are spaced apart from each other in the second direction.” [Remarks: pg. 11, 3rd para.], Is the Applicant arguing a 4x2 block of pixels? What light-emitting types [first first-type, first second-type, second first-type, second second-type] correspond to the two light emitting elements?) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The argued amended claim limitation states: “wherein the first second-type light-emitting element, the first first-type light- emitting element, the second second-type light-emitting element, and the second first- type light-emitting element are sequentially arranged along a first direction” [Remarks: pg. 11, para. 4].
Refer to figure 3a and paragraphs 17 & 3 of Sumida. A display panel comprises a matrix of pixels arranged in m rows and n columns. Each pixel 14 corresponds to a color [see para 33, red r, green g, or blue b]. Referring to figure 3c, a red pixel 31 (comprising first first-type light-emitting element [r-1 region 311] & first second-type light emitting element [r-2 region 312]), a green pixel 32 (comprising second first-type light emitting element [g-1 region 321] & second second-type light emitting element [g-2 region 322]) and a blue pixel 33 [see para. 24 & 38].
Note that along the horizontal direction [corresponding to the claimed first direction], the red pixel 31 (comprising first first-type light-emitting element [r-1 region 311] & first second-type light emitting element [r-2 region 312]) & blue pixel 32 (comprising second first-type light emitting element [g-1 region 321] & second second-type light emitting element [g-2 region 322]) are sequentially and repeatedly arranged. Further note that each light-emitting element corresponding to each type [first first-type, first second-type, second first-type, & second second-type] are spaced apart from each other [see figs. 3b-3c].
Thus, Sumida teaches the amended claim limitations of independent claim 1 as argued.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumida et al. (US 20120299883).
As to claim 1, Sumida discloses an electronic device [abstract & figs. 3a-4] comprising:
a first-pixel driving circuit (r pixel 31) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24];
a first first-type light-emitting element (organic EL element A, r-1 region 311) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24] electrically connected to the first-pixel driving circuit;
a first second-type light-emitting element (organic EL element B, r-2 region 312) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24] electrically connected to the first- pixel driving circuit;
a second-pixel driving circuit (g pixel 32) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24];
a second first-type light-emitting element (organic EL element A, g-1 region 321) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24] electrically connected to the second- pixel driving circuit;
a second second-type light-emitting element (organic EL element B, g-2 region 322) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24] electrically connected to the second-pixel driving circuit;
a third-pixel driving circuit (b pixel 33) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24];
a third first-type light-emitting element (organic EL element A, b-1 region 331) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24] electrically connected to the third- pixel driving circuit;
a third second-type light-emitting element (organic EL element B, b-2 region 332) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24] electrically connected to the third- pixel driving circuit; and
a light path control layer (lens 26, organic EL element B corresponding to r-2 region 312, g-2 region 322, & b-2 region 332) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 35-36, 38, & 24] disposed on the first second-type light-emitting element, the second second-type light-emitting element, and the third second-type light-emitting element,
wherein the first second-type light-emitting element, the first first-type light-emitting element, the second second-type light-emitting element, and the second first-type light-emitting element are sequentially arranged along a first direction (arranged horizontally) [figs. 3a-4], and
wherein the third second-type light-emitting element and the third first-type light-emitting element are spaced apart from the first second-type light-emitting element, the first first-type light-emitting element, the second second-type light- emitting element, and the second first-type light-emitting element in the second direction (vertically) [figs. 3a-4] intersecting the first direction (pixel circuits arranged in a matrix) [figs. 3a-4].
As to claim 2, Sumida discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein:
a color of light provided from the first first-type light-emitting element is substantially the same as a color of light provided from the first second-type light- emitting element (r pixel 31) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24];
a color of light provided from the second first-type light-emitting element is substantially the same as a color of light provided from the second second-type light- emitting element (g pixel 32) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24]; and
a color of light provided from the third first-type light-emitting element is substantially the same as a color of light provided from the third second-type light- emitting element (b pixel 33) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24].
As to claim 3, Sumida discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the third second-type light- emitting element is spaced apart from the first first-type light-emitting element and the first second-type light-emitting element in the second direction (matrix arrangement of pixel circuits) [figs. 3a-4], and
wherein the third first-type light-emitting element is spaced apart from the second first-type light-emitting element and the second second-type light-emitting element in the second direction (matrix arrangement of pixel circuits) [figs. 3a-4].
As to claim 4, Sumida discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first-pixel driving circuit, the second-pixel driving circuit, and the third-pixel driving circuit are arranged in the second direction (matrix arrangement of pixel circuits) [figs. 3a-4].
As to claim 13, Sumida discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein:
a first light-emitting region is defined in the first first-type light-emitting element (organic EL element A, r-1 region 311) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24];
a second light-emitting region is defined in the first second-type light-emitting element (organic EL element B, r-2 region 312) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24]; and
wherein an area of the first light-emitting region is equal to an area of the second light-emitting region [fig. 3c].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumida, in view of Youn (US 20210175461.
As to claim 14, Sumida teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein:
a first light-emitting region is defined in the first first-type light-emitting element (r-1 region 311) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24];
a second light-emitting region is defined in the second first-type light-emitting element (g-1 region 321) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24];
a third light-emitting region is defined in the third first-type light-emitting element (b-1 region 331) [figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24].
Sumida does not explicitly teach wherein areas of the first light-emitting region, the second light-emitting region, and the third light-emitting region are different from each other.
Youn teaches the concept of an electronic device [abstract], wherein areas of a first light-emitting region, a second light-emitting region, and a third light-emitting region are different from each other [figs 1-2 & para. 53-54].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the areas of the first light-emitting region, the second-light emitting region, and the third light-emitting region of the electronic device of Sumida, such that areas of the first light-emitting region, the second light-emitting region, and the third light-emitting region are different from each other, as taught by Youn, to improve the lifetime of the electronic device of Sumida, as taught by Youn [para. 54].
As to claim 15, Sumida as modified by Youn teaches the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the area of the third light- emitting region (blue) [Youn: para. 53 & Sumida: figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24] is greater than the area of the second light-emitting region (green) [Youn: para. 53 & Sumida: figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24], and the area of the second light-emitting region is greater than the area of the first light-emitting region (red) [Youn: para. 53 & Sumida: figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24].
As to claim 16, Sumida as modified by Youn teaches the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the first light-emitting region is a red light-emitting region (r-1 region 311) [Sumida: figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24 & Youn: para. 53], the second light-emitting region is a green light- emitting region (g-1 region 321) [Sumida: figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24 & Youn: para. 53], and the third light-emitting region is a blue light-emitting region (b-1 region 331) [Sumida: figs. 3a-4 & para. 38 & 24 & Youn: para. 53].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
Conclusion
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 DAVID TUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 10:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571)-272-7603. 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.
/DAVID TUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights