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 filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant draws particular attention to the limitations “wherein the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02; and wherein, for an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels” added to both independent claims 1 and 26, asserting regarding the first limitation that the 1931 CIE x coordinates would not be a variable that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to optimize with routine experimentation (Applicant’s Remarks pages 9-10), and regarding the second limitation that the claimed power requirement result of the first and second red sub-pixels would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve based on the disclosures of US 20160071468 A1 (Park et al) in view of US 20090115952 A1 (Nakamura et al) and US 20190280055 A1 (Hack et al), citing a few comparative examples in their disclosure wherein the comparative examples demonstrate some differences in power requirements and saturations (Applicant’s Remarks pages 8-9).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02”, the Examiner still finds the CIE x coordinates of each of the first and second red sub-pixels to be result-effective variables in the context of the teachings of the prior art (notably Mori ¶ [0067]), because while the present application may not identify a disparity in CIE x coordinates as a critical parameter to be adjusted (Applicant’s Remarks pages 8-10), the disclosures of Park, Nakamura, and Mori together demonstrate that it is known in the art that a pixel unit may have a first and a second red sub-pixel where the two red sub-pixels have different emission spectra; they simply do not compare the respective emission spectra using CIE coordinates. Mori’s teaching that the different emission spectra assist in realizing a wide color gamut would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the emission spectra of the first and second red sub-pixels, a difference in CIE x coordinates of at least 0.02 being a value that a person of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at.
Regarding the limitation “for an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels”, Applicant’s assertion that the claimed structure does not inherently enable a resulting power requirement configuration is acknowledged, as Applicant’s disclosed “runs” 3 and 26 use the same blue and green sub-pixels, different red sub-pixels (“sRGB” and “Rec2020” respectively), and have power requirements with a larger disparity than 10% (Table 4B).
However, the scope of the limitation “for an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels” is such that the disclosure of Park may read on it when particular details regarding the power requirements of the first and second sub-pixels of Park are omitted. This is because claims 1 and 26 do not presently include limitations that distinguish the structures of the first and second red sub-pixels in such a manner that, for example, the second red sub-pixel is limited to the red sub-pixel which has a higher power requirement when forming an image. Therefore, even if there is a disparity in the power requirements greater than 10% between the first and second red sub-pixels of Park forming an image, designating whichever of the red sub-pixels has the higher power requirement as “the first red sub-pixel” satisfies the limitation since the second red sub-pixel will not require “more than 10% more power” when the first red sub-pixel has the larger power requirement.
In the context of dependent claim 32, which further limits the disparity of power requirements, the teachings of prior art documents US 20190280231 A1 and US 20100289812 A1 are found relevant for consideration of routine optimization of the color gamut and CIE coordinates of the emitted light of the sub-pixels in the display device.
Furthermore, the “runs” disclosed by Applicant in tables 4A-4C are defined by color gamut conventions (e.g. sRGB, DCIP3, Rec2020) and the CIE coordinates of the light emitted. It is not clear how a person of ordinary skill in the art is to achieve the claimed configurations and power requirement parameters when the materials of the emissive layers and any additional color-altering features (e.g. claims 10, 14, 15) are not clearly defined in the context of each of the “runs”, without undue experimentation being required to arrive at the claimed structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 13-18, 21-22, 24, 26-27, 30, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In order to determine compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Federal Circuit developed a framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is "reasonable" or is "undue." (MPEP 2164.01(a)). The pertinent Wands factors in consideration are:
The breadth of the claims: The relevant claim limitations are to power requirement results, specifically the limitation “an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels” present in independent claims 1 and 26, which the examiner understands to set forth a power requirement result, some examples of which are listed in Tables 4A-4C in applicant’s specification.
The nature of the invention: The present invention is directed to a display device which comprises pixels, the pixels comprising four sub-pixels, specifically one blue sub-pixel, one green sub-pixel, and two distinct red sub-pixels. Additionally, color-altering structures of various types may be further included (e.g. color filters, downconversion layers, cavity structures per claims 10, 14, and 15) which affect the spectra of the emitted light.
The state of the prior art: As has been detailed in previous Office actions and the present Office action, configurations of sub-pixel and color-altering structures according to the claimed limitations may be found in the prior art of record.
(F) The amount of directed provided by the inventor: Tables 4A-4C presented in applicant’s specification describe experimental “runs”, which are defined by color gamut conventions (e.g. sRGB, DCIP3, Rec2020) and the CIE coordinates of the light emitted. However, the materials of the emissive layers and any additional color-altering features (e.g. claims 10, 14, 15) are not clearly defined in the context of each of the “runs”, as applicant’s disclosure has not provided direction on the particular structures used to achieve the results discussed in the “runs” for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replicate those “runs”.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: To arrive at the results of the “runs” detailed in Tables 4A-4C, a substantial amount of experimentation may be required when the only guidelines for attaining the result are a set of CIE coordinates for each sub-pixel and a color gamut as a reference point. Myriad emissive materials and color-altering structures may be employed in a variety of manners to adjust the emission spectrum of the light of each sub-pixel before the claimed result is achieved.
Due to their dependence on claims 1 or 26, claims 2, 8, 10-11, 13-18, 21-22, 24, 27, 30, and 32-33 are also rejected on this basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 recites the limitations "the first saturation and the second saturation" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The first and second saturations will be understood to refer to saturations of the first and second red sub-pixel respectively.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 14, 18, 22, 24, 26-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publications US 20160071468 A1 (Park et al hereinafter Park) in view of US 20090115952 A1 (Nakamura et al hereinafter Nakamura) and US 20200152915 A1 (Mori et al hereinafter Mori).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a device comprising: a full-color display panel (FIG. 1, display panel 300, ¶ [0050]) comprising a plurality of pixels (¶ [0008, 0010]), each comprising one or more sub-pixels (¶ [0024]), at least one of the plurality of pixels comprising: a green sub-pixel (FIG. 7b, G, ¶ [0097]); a blue sub-pixel (FIG. 7b, B, ¶ [0097]); a first red sub-pixel (FIG. 7b, R1, ¶ [0097]); and a second red sub-pixel (FIG. 7b, R2, ¶ [0097]).
Park does not explicitly state that the first red sub-pixel of the embodiment shown in FIG. 7b comprises a first emissive layer and that the second red sub-pixel also comprises the first emissive layer, a color altering layer disposed in a stack with the first red sub-pixel, wherein the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02; and wherein, for an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the sub-pixel layout of the embodiment comprising two different red sub-pixels shown in FIG. 7b with the embodiment having a shared stack of emissive layers and sub-pixels defined by color filters (230R/G/B) shown in FIG. 9 (which corresponds to a configuration of sub-pixels consistent with that shown in FIG. 7a), such that the emissive layers (361, 362, and 363a/b) are shared between the two red sub-pixels, because the only difference between the embodiments of FIG. 7a and FIG. 7b is that FIG. 7b includes two red sub-pixels while FIG. 7a includes only one.
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use two different red color filters having different peak wavelengths of their emission spectra to define the two red sub-pixels, in order to realize a display device consistent with that suggested in ¶ [0098] of Park wherein the two red sub-pixels R1 and R2 may have different emission spectra. The principle for this is already taught by Park, which differentiates between RGB sub-pixels in the FIG. 9 embodiment by the color filters, and it is more particularly suggested in Nakamura, which teaches a display device (Nakamura FIGS. 23-24, display surface 500k or 500m, ¶ [0158-0159]; in addition, ¶ [0014] teaches that the disclosed invention is applicable to organic display devices) using different color filters (Nakamura FIGS. 13 and 22, different red and blue color filters provide different emission spectra, ¶ [0137, 0157, and 0159]) to have two red sub-pixels (Nakamura FIGS. 23-24, sub-pixel R1 and R2, ¶ [0158-0159]) provided with different emission spectra (Nakamura ¶ [0137 and 0158-0159]).
Park and Nakamura both pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nakamura such that it comprises a first red sub-pixel comprising a first emissive layer (analogous to emissive layer 363 shown in Park FIG. 9); and a second red sub-pixel comprising the first emissive layer (emissive layer 363 disposed below both red sub-pixels R1 and R2 shown in Park FIG. 7b) and having a different emission spectrum than the first red sub-pixel (Park ¶ [0098]), a color altering layer disposed in a stack with the first red sub-pixel (Park FIG. 9, filter 230R), to allow for the red to be more recognizable for those with defective red-color vision as taught by Park.
Park in view of Nakamura do not explicitly teach that the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02; and wherein, for an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels.
Regarding the limitation “for an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels”, power consumption of the respective first and second red sub-pixels when generating images is not discussed in the disclosures of Park and Nakamura. However, assuming the first and second red sub-pixels of Park are used to form the same images, their respective power consumptions are either within 10% of each other, or the disparity between the two is greater than 10%. In the former case, the claim limitation is inherently satisfied. In the latter case, whichever red sub-pixel of Park that has greater power consumption may be designated as the first red sub-pixel, in which case the limitation is also satisfied since the configuration which uses the second red sub-pixel requires less power than the configuration which uses the first red sub-pixel, i.e. “not more than 10% more power”.
Regarding the limitation “the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02”, Park in view of Nakamura does not disclose that the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02, not explicitly quantifying the difference in emissive spectra of the first and second red sub-pixels in terms of CIE x coordinates.
Mori discloses a device comprising a full-color display panel comprising a plurality of pixels (¶ ([0026], [0031], & [0074]) FIGS. 1, 2, 7), each comprising one or more sub-pixels (FIG. 7, ¶ [0074]), at least one of the plurality of pixels comprising a green sub-pixel (FIG. 7, 51G, ¶ [0074]), a blue sub-pixel (FIG. 7, 51B, ¶ [0074]), a first red sub-pixel (FIG. 7, 51R1, ¶ [0074]), and a second red sub- pixel (FIG. 7, 51R2, ¶ [0074]) having a different emission spectrum than the first red sub-pixel (¶ [0074]), but likewise does not explicitly disclose that the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02.
However, Mori does disclose that there is a “demand for a wider color gamut, particularly for “deeper red”, while also retaining a plain red color (¶ [0067]). Because Mori recognizes that need and establishes that the two red sub-pixels have different emission spectra, the difference in the color emitted by the respective red sub-pixels, which may be quantified in terms of 1931 CIE coordinates, is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the difference in 1931 CIE x coordinates between the first and second red sub-pixels into the claimed range, as it is a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02 in order to achieve a desirable color gamut as taught by Mori (MPEP 2144.05). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). A person of ordinary skill would likewise find it obvious to vary, through routine optimization, the difference in 1931 CIE x coordinates between the first and second red sub-pixels into the claimed range for the device of Park.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed difference in 1931 CIE x coordinates is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. that the invention would not work without the specific claimed difference in coordinates).
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the at least one pixel includes no sub-pixels other than the green (Park FIG. 7b, sub-pixel G, ¶ [0097]), blue (FIG. 7b, sub-pixel B, ¶ [0097]), first red (FIG. 7b, sub-pixel R1, ¶ [0097]), and second red (FIG. 7b, sub-pixel R2, ¶ [0097]) sub-pixels.
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and Park further discloses that at least one of the green sub-pixel, blue sub-pixel, first red sub-pixel, and second red sub-pixel comprises an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and Park further discloses a color filter (FIG. 9, color filter 230, 230R/G/B, ¶ [0102]; in light of the obvious modification discussed with regards to claim 1, the color filter layer will comprise two red different color filters to define the two red sub-pixels of FIG. 7b) in optical communication with the first red sub-pixel (FIG. 7b, sub-pixel R1, ¶ [0097]).
Regarding claim 18, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the display panel comprises 3 data lines per pixel (more specifically that each sub-pixel comprises one data line (FIG. 3, Dj, ¶ [0070]), and because each pixel comprises three sub-pixels, the display panel comprises 3 data lines per pixel; red sub-pixels R1 and R2 may also be activated simultaneously to make the red color more recognizable to those with defective color vision ¶ [0098]).
Regarding claim 22, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not teach that the display panel is capable of operating with a color gamut equivalent to at least 95% of the Rec2020 1931 CIE color gamut with a power consumption of not more than 6.85 mW/cm2 at 500 nits luminance. However, because the structure of claim 1 is suggested by Park in view of Nakamura and Mori, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the recited structure would be capable of performing at a capacity such as that which is claimed, namely that the display panel is capable of operating with a color gamut equivalent to at least 95% of the Rec2020 1931 CIE color gamut with a power consumption of not more than 6.85 mW/cm2 at 500 nits luminance.
Regarding claim 24, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not teach that the display panel is capable of operating with a color gamut equivalent to at least 90% of the Rec2020 1931 CIE color gamut with a power consumption of not more than 6 mW/cm2 at 500 nits luminance. However, because the structure of claim 1 is suggested by Park in view of Nakamura and Mori, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the recited structure would be capable of performing at a capacity such as that which is claimed, namely that the display panel is capable of operating with a color gamut equivalent to at least 90% of the Rec2020 1931 CIE color gamut with a power consumption of not more than 6 mW/cm2 at 500 nits luminance.
Regarding claim 26, Park discloses a consumer electronic device comprising: a full-color display panel (FIG. 1, display panel 300, ¶ [0050]) comprising a plurality of pixels (¶ [0008, 0010]), each comprising one or more sub-pixels (¶ [0024]), at least one of the plurality of pixels comprising: a green sub-pixel (FIG. 7b, G, ¶ [0097]); a blue sub-pixel (FIG. 7b, B, ¶ [0097]); a first red sub-pixel (FIG. 7b, R1, ¶ [0097]); and a second red sub-pixel (FIG. 7b, R2, ¶ [0097]).
Park does not explicitly state that the first red sub-pixel of the embodiment shown in FIG. 7b comprises a first emissive layer and that the second red sub-pixel also comprises the first emissive layer, a color altering layer disposed in a stack with the first red sub-pixel, wherein the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02; and wherein, for an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the sub-pixel layout of the embodiment comprising two different red sub-pixels shown in FIG. 7b with the embodiment having a shared stack of emissive layers and sub-pixels defined by color filters (230R/G/B) shown in FIG. 9 (which corresponds to a configuration of sub-pixels consistent with that shown in FIG. 7a), such that the emissive layers (361, 362, and 363a/b) are shared between the two red sub-pixels, because the only difference between the embodiments of FIG. 7a and FIG. 7b is that FIG. 7b includes two red sub-pixels while FIG. 7a includes only one.
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use two different red color filters having different peak wavelengths of their emission spectra to define the two red sub-pixels, in order to realize a display device consistent with that suggested in ¶ [0098] of Park wherein the two red sub-pixels R1 and R2 may have different emission spectra. The principle for this is already taught by Park, which differentiates between RGB sub- pixels in the FIG. 9 embodiment by the color filters, and it is more particularly suggested in Nakamura, which teaches a display device (Nakamura FIGS. 23-24, display surface 500k or 500m, ¶ [0158-0159]; in addition, ¶ [0014] teaches that the disclosed invention is applicable to organic display devices) using different color filters (Nakamura FIGS. 13 and 22, different red and blue color filters provide different emission spectra, ¶ [0137, 0157, and 0159]) to have two red sub-pixels (Nakamura FIGS. 23-24, sub-pixel R1 and R2, ¶ [0158-0159]) provided with different emission spectra (Nakamura ¶ [0137 and 0158-0159]).
Park and Nakamura both pertain to the field of display devices. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nakamura such that it comprises a first red sub-pixel comprising a first emissive layer (analogous to emissive layer 363 shown in Park FIG. 9); and a second red sub-pixel comprising the first emissive layer (emissive layer 363 disposed below both red sub-pixels R1 and R2 shown in Park FIG. 7b) and a color altering layer disposed in a stack with the first red sub-pixel (Park FIG. 9, filter 230R), to allow for the red to be more recognizable for those with defective red-color vision as taught by Park.
Park in view of Nakamura do not explicitly teach that the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02; and wherein, for an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels.
Regarding the limitation “for an image that is renderable using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, when the full-color display panel displays the image using the green, blue, and second red sub-pixels, the at least one pixel uses not more than 10% more power than when the full-color display panel displays the same image using the green, blue, and first red sub-pixels”, power consumption of the respective first and second red sub-pixels when generating images is not discussed in the disclosures of Park and Nakamura. However, assuming the first and second red sub-pixels of Park are used to form similar images, their respective power consumptions are either within 10% of each other, or the disparity between the two is greater than 10%. In the former case, the claim limitation is inherently satisfied. In the latter case, whichever red sub-pixel of Park that has greater power consumption may be designated as the first red sub-pixel, in which case the limitation is also satisfied since the configuration which uses the second red sub-pixel requires less power than the configuration which uses the first red sub-pixel, i.e. “not more than 10% more power”.
Regarding the limitation “the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02”, Park in view of Nakamura does not disclose that the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02, not explicitly quantifying the difference in emissive spectra of the first and second red sub-pixels in terms of CIE x coordinates.
Mori discloses a device comprising a full-color display panel comprising a plurality of pixels (¶ ([0026], [0031], & [0074]) FIGS. 1, 2, 7), each comprising one or more sub-pixels (FIG. 7, ¶ [0074]), at least one of the plurality of pixels comprising a green sub-pixel (FIG. 7, 51G, ¶ [0074]), a blue sub-pixel (FIG. 7, 51B, ¶ [0074]), a first red sub-pixel (FIG. 7, 51R1, ¶ [0074]), and a second red sub- pixel (FIG. 7, 51R2, ¶ [0074]) having a different emission spectrum than the first red sub-pixel (¶ [0074]), but likewise does not explicitly disclose that the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02.
However, Mori does disclose that there is a “demand for a wider color gamut, particularly for “deeper red”, while also retaining a plain red color (¶ [0067]). Because Mori recognizes that need and establishes that the two red sub-pixels have different emission spectra, the difference in the color emitted by the respective red sub-pixels, which may be quantified in terms of 1931 CIE coordinates, is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the difference in 1931 CIE x coordinates between the first and second red sub-pixels into the claimed range, as it is a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have the first and second red sub-pixels have 1931 CIE x coordinates that differ by at least 0.02 in order to achieve a desirable color gamut as taught by Mori (MPEP 2144.05). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). A person of ordinary skill would likewise find it obvious to vary, through routine optimization, the difference in 1931 CIE x coordinates between the first and second red sub-pixels into the claimed range for the device of Park.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed difference in 1931 CIE x coordinates is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. that the invention would not work without the specific claimed difference in coordinates).
Regarding claim 27, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 26 as detailed above, and Mori further discloses that the device may be a flat panel display (Mori, FIG. 1, the flat-panel display of display device 10, ¶ [0003]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to employ the device of Park in a flat-panel display, in order to manufacture a flat-panel display wherein those with defective red-color vision may more effectively recognize the color red or distinguish the color (Park, ¶ [0098]).
Regarding claim 30, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and Park further discloses that the color altering layer is a color filter (FIG. 9, red color filter 230R, ¶ [0102]).
Claims 10-11, 13, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nakamura and Mori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20200388651 A1 (Woo).
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not disclose that the second red sub-pixel comprises a cavity structure.
However, Woo discloses a display panel (FIG. 3 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the display panel, ¶ [0020]) comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (FIG. 3, subpixels P1, P2, and P3, ¶ [0029]), wherein a red sub-pixel (FIG. 3, subpixel P3) comprises a cavity structure (FIG. 3, auxiliary layer 30, ¶ [0046]). Woo further teaches that the inclusion of the cavity structure improves color reproducibility (¶ [0048]).
Park, Nakamura, Mori, and Woo pertain to the field of display devices. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nakamura and Mori further in light of Woo, such that the second red sub-pixel comprises a cavity structure, in order to improve the color reproducibility of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not disclose that the first red sub-pixel comprises a cavity structure.
However, Woo discloses a display panel (FIG. 3 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the display panel, ¶ [0020]) comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (FIG. 3, subpixels P1, P2, and P3, ¶ [0029]), wherein a red sub-pixel (FIG. 3, subpixel P3) comprises a cavity structure (FIG. 3, auxiliary layer 30, ¶ [0046]). Woo further teaches that the inclusion of the cavity structure improves color reproducibility (¶ [0048]).
Park, Nakamura, Mori, and Woo pertain to the field of display devices. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nakamura and Mori further in light of Woo, such that the first red sub-pixel comprises a cavity structure, in order to improve the color reproducibility of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not explicitly disclose that the first and second red sub-pixel comprise different emissive materials.
However, Woo discloses a display panel (Woo FIG. 3 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the display panel, (Woo ¶ [0020]) comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (Woo FIG. 3, subpixels P1, P2, and P3, ¶ [0029]), wherein a red sub-pixel (Woo FIG. 3, subpixel P3) comprises a quantum dot color converting layer (FIG. 3, quantum dot color converting layer 80 including layers 81 and 85, ¶ [0039]). Woo further teaches that the inclusion of the quantum dot color converting layer, when combined with a color filter layer (Woo FIG. 3, color filters 70R and 70G, ¶ [0039]), improves light-emitting efficiency in the red and green color filters where they are implemented (Woo ¶ [0041]). Woo also discloses that some sub-pixels may have a quantum dot layer while others do not (Woo FIG. 3, quantum dot layers 81 and 85 are disposed above subpixels P2 and P3 but not subpixel P1).
Park, Nakamura, Mori, and Woo pertain to the field of display devices. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nakamura and Mori further in light of Woo, such that the first red sub-pixel comprises a first quantum dot down-conversion layer, in order to improve the light-emitting efficiency of the first red sub-pixel. Having done so, it consequently follows that the first and second red sub-pixel comprise different emissive materials, since the first sub-pixel comprises a quantum dot layer while the second red sub-pixel does not.
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Nakamura and Hack teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the first red sub-pixel comprises a first emissive material (FIG. 9, in light of the obvious modification discussed with regards to claim 1, indicates that the first red sub-pixel comprises a first emissive material in either of emission layers 361 or 362, ¶ [0102]), but does not disclose that the first red sub-pixel comprises a first quantum dot down-conversion layer.
However, Woo discloses a display panel (Woo FIG. 3 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the display panel, (Woo ¶ [0020]) comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (Woo FIG. 3, subpixels P1, P2, and P3, ¶ [0029]), wherein a red sub-pixel (Woo FIG. 3, subpixel P3) comprises a quantum dot color converting layer (FIG. 3, quantum dot color converting layer 80 including layers 81 and 85, ¶ [0039]). Woo further teaches that the inclusion of the quantum dot color converting layer, when combined with a color filter layer (Woo FIG. 3, color filters 70R and 70G, ¶ [0039]), improves light-emitting efficiency in the red and green sub-pixels where they are implemented (Woo ¶ [0041]).
Park, Nakamura, Mori, and Woo pertain to the field of display devices. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nakamura and Mori further in light of Woo, such that the first red sub-pixel comprises a first quantum dot down-conversion layer, in order to improve the light-emitting efficiency of the first red sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 16, Park in view of Nakamura, Mori, and Woo teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and Park further discloses that the first emissive material is a blue, light blue, or green emissive material (Park, emission layer 361 is blue, and emission layer 362 is green, ¶ [0102]).
Regarding claim 17, Park in view of Nakamura, Mori, and Woo teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and Park further discloses that the second red sub-pixel comprises the first emissive material (Park FIG. 9, in light of the obvious modification discussed with regards to claim 1, indicates that the second red sub-pixel comprises a first emissive material in either of emission layers 361 or 362, ¶ [0102]), but does not disclose that the second red sub-pixel comprises a second quantum dot down-conversion layer.
However, since Woo taught that the inclusion of the quantum dot color converting layer, when combined with a color filter layer (Woo FIG. 3, color filters 70R and 70G, ¶ [0039]), improves light-emitting efficiency in the red and green sub-pixels where they are implemented (Woo ¶ [0041]), as discussed with regards to claim 15 above, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the device of Park in view of Nakamura and Mori further in view of Woo to include a second quantum dot down-conversion layer in the second red sub-pixel of Park, in order to improve the light-emitting efficiency in the second red sub-pixel.
Regarding claim 21, Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not disclose that the first and second red sub-pixels comprise different quantum dot down-conversion layers.
However, Woo discloses a display panel (Woo FIG. 3 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the display panel, (Woo ¶ [0020]) comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (Woo FIG. 3, subpixels P1, P2, and P3, ¶ [0029]), wherein a red sub-pixel (Woo FIG. 3, subpixel P3) comprises a quantum dot color converting layer (FIG. 3, quantum dot color converting layer 80 including layers 81 and 85, ¶ [0039]). Woo further teaches that the inclusion of the quantum dot color converting layer, when combined with a color filter layer (Woo FIG. 3, color filters 70R and 70G, ¶ [0039]), improves light-emitting efficiency in the red and green sub-pixels where they are implemented (Woo ¶ [0041]).
Referring back to the device of Park, the two red sub-pixels may emit light having different peak wavelength spectra (Park, ¶ [0098]).
Park, Nakamura, Mori, and Woo pertain to the field of display devices. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Park in view of Nakamura and Mori further in view of Woo, such that the first and second red sub-pixels comprise quantum dot down-conversion layers, in order to improve the light-emitting efficiency of the first and second red sub-pixels, and further ensure that the first and second red sub-pixels comprise different quantum dot down-conversion layers, because the two red sub-pixels have different peak wavelength emission spectra and amplifying their respective peak wavelengths with different quantum dot down-conversion layers would further improve the light-emitting efficiency of the first and second red sub-pixels.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nakamura and Mori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publications US 20190280055 A1 (Hack et al hereinafter Hack), US 20100289812 A1 (Kobayashi et al hereinafter Kobayashi), and US 20190280231 A1 (Kim et al hereinafter Kim).
Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but they do not further teach a difference between the first saturation and the second saturation is such that the device uses not more than 10% more power when the first red sub-pixel is used to display an image than when the second red sub-pixel is used to display the image.
Regarding “a difference between the first saturation and the second saturation”, Hack discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 41, ¶ [0239]) wherein two sub-pixels of the same overall color (in this case, a light blue and a deep blue in an RGB1B2Y pixel ¶ [0239]) are used in the same pixel and have different saturations, which affects the lifetime of the sub-pixels as well as their capability to provide a wide color gamut (e.g. making a white point ¶ [0239]). The respective saturations of sub-pixels of the same overall color yet having different emission spectra (the configuration taught by Park FIG. 7b, ¶ [0098]) in the same sub-pixel are therefore result-effective variables which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to vary through routine optimization. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a configuration wherein the second saturation is different than the first saturation, in order to achieve a desired balance of wide color gamut with lifetime of the red sub-pixels. (See MPEP 2144.05).
Further, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed difference in saturations is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Park in view of Nakamura, Mori, and Hack do not further disclose that the device uses not more than 10% more power when the first red sub-pixel is used to display an image than when the second red sub-pixel is used to display the image, the disparity in power-requirements of the first and second red subpixel not explicitly taught due to it not being a parameter of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention. When considering the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure, it is noted that “runs” 1 and 4 (Tables 4A-4C), which use the same green and blue subpixels and then an sRGB red subpixel or a DCIP3 red subpixel, appear to have power requirement parameters which meet the claimed limitations if the sRGB and DCIP3 red subpixels are considered as the first and second red subpixels, and CIE coordinates of the light emitted for each are listed (sRGB red CIE (0.654, 0.346), DCIP3 red CIE (0.682, 0.318), green CIE (0.304, 0.601), blue CIE (0.141, 0.055)).
Further, Kobayashi discusses that in the context of display devices, keeping to standardized color gamut formats such as sRGB and DCIP3 may result in compromises to color fidelity (¶ [0003-0005]). Additionally, Kim discloses that for a display device (¶ [0098]) including red, green, and blue sub-pixels, a variety of ranges of CIE coordinates for each of the subpixel types are acceptable (such as the CIE coordinates suggested for “runs” 1 and 4 of Applicant’s Tables 4A-4C). Since Kobayashi and Kim both indicate that the color emitted by display devices are influenced by the color gamut formats used as reference for the emissive spectra, and the CIE coordinates of the emitted light, those parameters would be recognized as result-effective variables to be applied to the blue subpixel, green subpixel, first red subpixel, and second red subpixel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the color gamut formats and CIE coordinates of the blue subpixel, green subpixel, first red subpixel, and second red subpixel since those parameters have been identified as result-effective variables. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a configuration wherein, after adjusting the CIE coordinates of the subpixels, the device uses not more than 10% more power when the first red sub-pixel is used to display an image than when the second red sub-pixel is used to display the image, as a natural consequence of adjusting the emitted light to provide appropriate color fidelity and a wide color gamut. See also MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed power requirement is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the
invention would not work without the specific claimed power requirements).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nakamura and Mori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hack.
Park in view of Nakamura and Mori teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but they do not further teach that the second red sub-pixel is configured to emit red light having a saturation different than light emitted by the first red sub-pixel.
However, Hack discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 41, ¶ [0239]) wherein two sub-pixels of the same overall color (in this case, a light blue and a deep blue in an RGB1B2Y pixel ¶ [0239]) are used in the same pixel and have different saturations, which affects the lifetime of the sub-pixels as well as their capability to provide a wide color gamut (e.g. making a white point ¶ [0239]). The respective saturations of sub-pixels of the same overall color yet having different emission spectra (the configuration taught by Park FIG. 7b, ¶ [0098]) in the same sub-pixel are therefore result-effective variables which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to vary through routine optimization. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a configuration wherein the second red sub-pixel is configured to emit red light having a saturation different than light emitted by the first red sub-pixel, in order to achieve a desired balance of wide color gamut with lifetime of the red sub-pixels. (See MPEP 2144.05).
Further, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed difference in saturations is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent publications US 20240313035 A1, US 20130249377 A1, US 20120075278 A1, US 20070075627 A1, and US 20060172455 A1.
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 EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813