DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 12/23/2025.
Currently, claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending in the application.
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 Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and 17-20 have been considered. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach all of the limitations of the amended claims. This argument is not found persuasive because the cited prior art does teach all of the limitations of the amended claims (see prior art rejections below).
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over OH et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0125496) in view of JANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0097203).
Regarding independent claim 1, Oh teaches a display panel (Fig. 8), comprising:
a pixel unit (Fig. 8, SP1 + SP2 + SP3 + SP4 + SP5 + SP6, ¶ [0040]) comprising a plurality of pixels (Fig. 8, SP1 + SP2 + SP3 + SP4 + SP5 + SP6) which emits light of different colors (¶ [0040]) from each other; and
wherein, each of the plurality of pixels comprises:
a pixel circuit (Fig. 7, 150 in DA, ¶¶ [0042] & [0072]);
a first light emitting (Fig. 8, SP1, ¶ [0040]) element electrically connected to the pixel circuit; and
a second light emitting element (Fig. 8, SP4, ¶ [0040]) electrically connected to the pixel circuit and disposed adjacent to the first light emitting element (Fig. 8, SP1 and SP4 are adjacent to each other in the plan view of Fig. 8), wherein the second light emitting element emits light of a same color (¶ [0040] teaches that SP1 and SP4 both emit red light) as light emitted from the first light emitting element.
However, Oh does not explicitly teach a light blocking element disposed on the pixel unit, wherein the light blocking element blocks a portion of light emitted from each of the plurality of pixels, wherein,
the light blocking element blocks a portion of light emitted from the first light emitting element and traveling in a first direction, and blocks a portion of light emitted from the second light emitting element and traveling in a second direction opposite to the first direction.
However, Jang is a pertinent art that teaches a light blocking element (Figs. 2 & 4, 400, ¶ [0069]) disposed on the pixel unit (Figs. 2 & 4, PX, ¶ [0069]), wherein the light blocking element blocks a portion of light emitted from each of the plurality of pixels (¶ [0043]), wherein,
the light blocking element blocks a portion of light emitted from the first light emitting element and traveling in a first direction (Figs. 2 & 4, light blocking layer 400 is on the left and right sides of the emission layer 140 (¶ [0077]) and would therefore be capable of blocking at least a portion of emitted light), and blocks a portion of light emitted from the second light emitting element and traveling in a second direction opposite to the first direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s sub pixels to further comprise a light blocking layer according to the teaching of Jang (Figs. 2 & 4) in order to prevent ghost image generation (Jang ¶ [0084]).
Regarding claim 2, Oh modified by Jang teaches the display panel of claim 1, and Oh teaches a pixel electrode (Fig. 9, 215a, ¶ [0073]) of the first light emitting element (Fig. 8, SP1, ¶ [0040]) is spaced apart from a pixel electrode (Fig. 9, 215b, ¶ [0073]) of the second light emitting element (Fig. 8, SP4, ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Oh modified by Jang teaches the display panel of claim 1, and Jang teaches that, in a plan view, the light blocking element (Figs. 2 & 4, 400, ¶ [0069]) surrounds each of the first light emitting element (Figs. 2 & 4, Jang’s light blocking layer 400 surrounds each pixel PX. Therefore, Oh’s modified subpixel SP1 would also be surrounded by Jang’s light blocking layer) and the second light emitting element (Figs. 2 & 4, Jang’s light blocking layer 400 surrounds each pixel PX. Therefore, Oh’s modified subpixel SP4 would also be surrounded by Jang’s light blocking layer), and a first distance between an edge in the first direction of the first light emitting element and the light blocking element is less than a second distance between an edge in the second direction of the first light emitting element and the light blocking element (Figs. 2 & 4, pixels PX in the left 2b directly overlap light blocking layer 400 in the left direction while PX does not overlap 400 in the right direction in the plan view. Therefore, the distance from a left edge of the pixel PX to the light blocking layer 400 is less than the distance from a right edge of the pixel PX to the light blocking layer 400).
Regarding claim 4, Oh modified by Jang teaches the display panel of claim 3, and Jang teaches that in the plan view, a third distance between an edge in the first direction of the second light emitting element and the light blocking element is greater than a fourth distance between an edge in the second direction of the second light emitting element and the light blocking element (Figs. 2 & 4, pixels PX in the right 2b area directly overlap light blocking layer 400 in the right direction while PX does not overlap 400 in the left direction in the plan view. Therefore, the distance from a left edge of the pixel PX to the light blocking layer 400 is greater than the distance from a right edge of the pixel PX to the light blocking layer 400).
Regarding claim 5, Oh modified by Jang teaches the display panel of claim 1, and Oh teaches that the plurality of pixels (Fig. 8, SP1 + SP2 + SP3 + SP4 + SP5 + SP6, ¶ [0040]) comprises a first pixel (Fig. 8, SP1 + SP4), a second pixel (Fig. 8, SP2 + SP5), and a third pixel (Fig. 8, SP3 + SP6), and a first light emitting element of the first pixel (Fig. 8, SP1), a first light emitting element of the second pixel (Fig. 8, SP5), and a first light emitting element of the third pixel (Fig. 8, SP3) are respectively placed at vertices of an imaginary triangle (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Oh modified by Jang teaches the display panel of claim 5, and Oh teaches a second light emitting element of the first pixel (Fig. 8, SP4, ¶ [0040]), a second light emitting element of the second pixel (Fig. 8, SP2), and a second light emitting element of the third pixel (Fig. 8, SP6) are respectively placed at vertices of another imaginary triangle (Fig. 8).
Claims 7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over OH et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0125496) in view of JANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0097203) and further in view of JIN (US Pub. No. 2022/0310008).
Regarding claim 7, Oh modified by Jang teaches the display panel of claim 1.
However, Oh modified by Jang does not explicitly teach a first emission signal, which controls an operation of the first light emitting element, is applied to the pixel circuit, and a second emission signal, which controls an operation of the second light emitting element, is applied to the pixel circuit.
However, Jin is a pertinent art that teaches a first emission signal (Fig. 2, EM2, ¶ [0064]), which controls an operation of the first light emitting element (¶ [0064]), is applied to the pixel circuit, and a second emission signal (Fig. 2, EM1, ¶ [0064]), which controls an operation of the second light emitting element (¶ [0064]), is applied to the pixel circuit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh modified by Jang’s pixel circuit to comprise the circuitry and signals of Jin’s pixel circuit (Fig. 2) in order to improve uneven brightness (Jin ¶¶ [0049] & [0058]).
Regarding independent claim 11, Oh teaches a display device (Fig. 8) comprising: a display panel (Fig. 8) comprising a pixel unit (Fig. 8, SP1 + SP2 + SP3 + SP4 + SP5 + SP6, ¶ [0040]) comprising a plurality of pixels (Fig. 8, SP1 + SP2 + SP3 + SP4 + SP5 + SP6) which emits light of different colors (¶ [0040]) from each other,
a gate driver (Fig. 7, GL, ¶ [0067]) which provides a gate signal to the display panel; a data driver (Fig. 7, DL, ¶ [0067]) which provides a data voltage to the display panel, wherein each of the plurality of pixels comprises:
a pixel circuit (Fig. 7, 150, ¶¶ [0042] & [0072]);
a first light emitting element (Fig. 8, SP1, ¶ [0040]) electrically connected to the pixel circuit and disposed adjacent to the first light emitting element (Fig. 8, SP1 and SP4 are adjacent to each other in the plan view of Fig. 8); and
a second light emitting element (Fig. 8, SP4, ¶ [0040]) electrically connected to the pixel circuit, wherein the second light emitting element emits light of a same color (¶ [0040] teaches that SP1 and SP4 both emit red light) as light emitted from the first light emitting element.
However, Oh does not explicitly teach a light blocking element disposed on the pixel unit, wherein the light blocking element blocks a portion of light emitted from each of the plurality of pixels;
the light blocking element blocks a portion of light emitted from the first light emitting element of each of the plurality of pixels and traveling in a first direction, and blocks a portion of light emitted from the second light emitting element of each of the plurality of pixels and traveling in a second direction opposite to the first direction.
and an emission driver which provides an emission signal to the display panel
However, Jang is a pertinent art that teaches a light blocking element (Figs. 2 & 4, 400, ¶ [0069]) disposed on the pixel unit (Figs. 2 & 4, PX, ¶ [0069]), wherein the light blocking element blocks a portion of light emitted from each of the plurality of pixels (¶ [0043]);
the light blocking element blocks a portion of light emitted from the first light emitting element of each of the plurality of pixels (each of Oh’s modified subpixels would be surrounded by Jang’s light blocking layer 400) and traveling in a first direction, (Figs. 2 & 4, light blocking layer 400 is on the left and right sides of the emission layer 140 (¶ [0077]) and would therefore be capable of blocking at least a portion of emitted light) and blocks a portion of light emitted from the second light emitting element of each of the plurality of pixels (each of Oh’s modified subpixels would be surrounded by Jang’s light blocking layer 400) and traveling in a second direction opposite to the first direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s sub pixels to further comprise a light blocking layer according to the teaching of Jang (Figs. 2 & 4) in order to prevent ghost image generation (Jang ¶ [0084]).
However, Oh modified by Jang does not explicitly teach an emission driver which provides an emission signal to the display panel.
However, Jin is a pertinent art that teaches an emission driver (Fig. 2, EM1 + EM2, ¶ [0064]) which provides an emission signal to the display panel (¶ [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh modified by Jang’s pixel circuit to comprise the circuitry and signals of Jin’s pixel circuit (Fig. 2) in order to improve uneven brightness (Jin ¶¶ [0049] & [0058]).
Regarding claim 12, Oh modified by Jang modified by Jin teaches the display device of claim 11, and Oh teaches that a pixel electrode (Fig. 9, 215a, ¶ [0073]) of the first light emitting element (Fig. 8, SP1, ¶ [0040]) is spaced apart from a pixel electrode (Fig. 9, 215b, ¶ [0073]) of the second light emitting element (Fig. 8, SP4, ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Oh modified by Jang modified by Jin teaches the display device of claim 11, and Jang teaches that in a plan view, the light blocking element (Figs. 2 & 4, 400, ¶ [0069]) surrounds each of the first light emitting element (Figs. 2 & 4, Jang’s light blocking layer 400 surrounds each pixel PX. Therefore, Oh’s modified subpixel SP1 would also be surrounded by Jang’s light blocking layer) and the second light emitting element (Figs. 2 & 4, Jang’s light blocking layer 400 surrounds each pixel PX. Therefore, Oh’s modified subpixel SP4 would also be surrounded by Jang’s light blocking layer), and a first distance between an edge in the first direction of the first light emitting element and the light blocking element is less than a second distance between an edge in the second direction of the first light emitting element and the light blocking element (Figs. 2 & 4, pixels PX in the left 2b directly overlap light blocking layer 400 in the left direction while PX does not overlap 400 in the right direction in the plan view. Therefore, the distance from a left edge of the pixel PX to the light blocking layer 400 is less than the distance from a right edge of the pixel PX to the light blocking layer 400).
Regarding claim 14, Oh modified by Jang modified by Jin teaches the display device of claim 13 and Jang teaches that in the plan view, a third distance between an edge in the first direction of the second light emitting element and the light blocking element is greater than a fourth distance between an edge in the second direction of the second light emitting element and the light blocking element (Figs. 2 & 4, pixels PX in the right 2b area directly overlap light blocking layer 400 in the right direction while PX does not overlap 400 in the left direction in the plan view. Therefore, the distance from a left edge of the pixel PX to the light blocking layer 400 is greater than the distance from a right edge of the pixel PX to the light blocking layer 400).
Regarding claim 15, Oh modified by Jang modified by Jin teaches the display device of claim 11, and Oh teaches that the plurality of pixels (Fig. 8, SP1 + SP2 + SP3 + SP4 + SP5 + SP6, ¶ [0040]) comprises a first pixel (Fig. 8, SP1 + SP4), a second pixel (Fig. 8, SP2 + SP5), and a third pixel (Fig. 8, SP3 + SP6), and a first light emitting element of the first pixel (Fig. 8, SP1), a first light emitting element of the second pixel (Fig. 8, SP5), and a first light emitting element of the third pixel (Fig. 8, SP3) are respectively placed at vertices of an imaginary triangle (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 16, Oh modified by Jang modified by Jin teaches the display device of claim 15, and Oh teaches that a second light emitting element of the first pixel (Fig. 8, SP4, ¶ [0040]), a second light emitting element of the second pixel (Fig. 8, SP2), and a second light emitting element of the third pixel (Fig. 8, SP6) are respectively placed at vertices of another imaginary triangle (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Oh modified by Jang modified by Jin teaches the display device of claim 11, and Jin teaches that the emission signal comprises: a first emission signal (Fig. 2, EM2, ¶ [0064]) which controls an operation of the first light emitting element (¶ [0064]), and a second emission signal (Fig. 2, EM1, ¶ [0064]) which controls an operation of the second light emitting element (¶ [0064]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over OH et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0125496) in view of JANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0097203) and further in view of JIN (US Pub. No. 2022/0310008) and further in view of LIU et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0177659).
Regarding claim 9, Oh modified by Jang teaches the display panel of claim 1.
However, Oh modified by Jang does not explicitly teach a first global signal line to which a first global signal is applied, wherein the first global signal line has a mesh shape, and the first global signal controls an operation of the first light emitting element; and a second global signal line to which a second global signal is applied, wherein the second global signal line has a mesh shape, and the second global signal controls an operation of the second light emitting element.
However, Jin is a pertinent art that teaches a first global signal line (Fig. 2, EM2, ¶ [0064]) to which a first global signal is applied (¶ [0064]), and the first global signal controls an operation of the first light emitting element (¶ [0064]); and a second global signal line (Fig. 2, EM1, ¶ [0064]) to which a second global signal is applied (¶ [0064]), and the second global signal controls an operation of the second light emitting element (¶ [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh modified by Jang’s pixel circuit to comprise the circuitry and signals of Jin’s pixel circuit (Fig. 2) in order to improve uneven brightness (Jin ¶¶ [0049] & [0058]).
However, Oh modified by Jang modified by Jin does not explicitly teach that the first global signal line has a mesh shape, wherein the second global signal line has a mesh shape.
However, Liu is a pertinent art that teaches the first global signal line (Fig. 13, 31, ¶ [0105]) has a mesh shape, wherein the second global signal line (Fig. 13, 41, ¶ [0105]) has a mesh shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh modified by Hang modified by Jin’s signal lines EM1 and EM2 to have a mesh shape according to the teaching of Liu (Fig. 13) in order to improve picture uniformity (Liu ¶ [0105]).
Regarding claim 19, Oh modified by Jang modified by Jin teaches a first global signal line (Fig. 2, EM2, ¶ [0064]) to which a first global signal is applied (¶ [0064]), and the first global signal controls an operation of the first light emitting element (¶ [0064]); and a second global signal line (Fig. 2, EM1, ¶ [0064]) to which a second global signal is applied (¶ [0064]), and the second global signal controls an operation of the second light emitting element (¶ [0064]).
However, Oh modified by Jang modified by Jin does not explicitly teach that the first global signal line has a mesh shape, wherein the second global signal line has a mesh shape.
However, Liu is a pertinent art that teaches the first global signal line (Fig. 13, 31, ¶ [0105]) has a mesh shape, wherein the second global signal line (Fig. 13, 41, ¶ [0105]) has a mesh shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh modified by Hang modified by Jin’s signal lines EM1 and EM2 to have a mesh shape according to the teaching of Liu (Fig. 13) in order to improve picture uniformity (Liu ¶ [0105]).
Allowable subject matter
Claims, 8, 10, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claims 1 and 11), 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record.
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 18, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “a fifth transistor comprising a gate electrode to which the first emission signal is applied, a first electrode to which a high power voltage is applied, and a second electrode connected to the second node; a seventh transistor comprising a gate electrode to which a light emitting element initialization gate signal is applied, a first electrode to which a second initialization signal is applied, and a second electrode connected to the pixel electrode of the first light emitting element; an eight transistor comprising a gate electrode to which the second emission signal is applied, a first electrode to which the high power voltage is applied, and a second electrode connected to the second node; a tenth transistor comprising a gate electrode to which the light emitting element initialization gate signal is applied, a first electrode to which the second initialization signal is applied, and a second electrode connected to the pixel electrode of the second light emitting element ”.
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 20, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “a fifth transistor comprising a gate electrode to which the emission signal is applied, a first electrode to which a high power voltage is applied, and a second electrode connected to the second node; a sixth transistor comprising a gate electrode to which the emission signal is applied, a first electrode connected to the third node, and a second electrode connected to a fourth node; a seventh transistor comprising a gate electrode to which a light emitting element initialization gate signal is applied, a first electrode to which a second initialization signal is applied, and a second electrode connected to a pixel electrode of the first light emitting element; a tenth transistor comprising a gate electrode to which the light emitting element initialization gate signal is applied, a first electrode to which the second initialization signal is applied, and a second electrode connected to the pixel electrode of the second light emitting element”.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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 B Gauthier can be reached on 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights