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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, the feature(s) “an internal compensation transistor electrically connected between a gate of the driving transistor and a drain of the driving transistor” in combination with “the external compensation transistor is used for responding to a reading and writing control signal to read an electrical signal of the source of the driving transistor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “an external compensation transistor, wherein the external compensation transistor is electrically connected to the light-emitting control transistor and a source of the driving transistor, and the external compensation transistor is used for responding to a reading and writing control signal to read an electrical signal of the source of the driving transistor and to compensate the threshold voltage of the driving transistor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted by the Examiner that SPEC [0045] discloses “The external compensation transistor T4 is further used … to read the threshold voltage of the light-emitting element and to compensate the threshold voltage of the driving transistor T1”, rather than reading an electrical signal of the source of the driving transistor. Furthermore, it is noted that the external compensation transistor T4 is electrically connected to a same terminal (see node B) of the driving transistor as electrically connects to internal compensation transistor T2. This means that Node B would be the driving transistor’s drain, rather than its source; hence, the structure shown in Fig. 2 would be incapable of performing the recited function.
The feature(s) “multi-level gate driving circuits arranged in cascade” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “each of the gate driving circuits is electrically connected between the timing controller and a corresponding one of plurality of pixel driving circuits” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “gate driving circuits … to output the first light-emitting control signal, the second light-emitting control signal, the first writing control signal” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fewer than all numbers, letters, and reference characters measure at least 1/8 inch in height as required by 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3). See Fig. 3, for example.
Some letters, numerals, and reference characters are illegible. See left side of Fig. 6, for example.
Fewer than all lines, numbers, and letters are “sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined… heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l).
In Fig. 3, the VDATA signal is unclear, especially prior to t2.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 30.
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the light-emitting control transistor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
A similar recitation in claim 19 is similarly indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an internal compensation transistor electrically connected between a gate of the driving transistor and a drain of the driving transistor … wherein the external compensation transistor is electrically connected to the light-emitting control transistor and a source of the driving transistor, … to read an electrical signal of the source of the driving transistor”. This is misdescriptive. See Fig. 2, for example, wherein internal compensation transistor T2 and external compensation transistor T4 are electrically connected to the same terminal of driving transistor T1, rather than to opposite terminals. The terminal at node B cannot simultaneously function as both a drain and a source of driving transistor T1. For examination purposes, claim 1 shall be interpreted as --an internal compensation transistor electrically connected between a gate of the driving transistor and a drain or a source of the driving transistor … wherein the external compensation transistor is electrically connected to the light-emitting control transistor and the drain or the source of the driving transistor, … to read an electrical signal of the drain or the source of the driving transistor--.
A similar recitation in claim 19 is similarly indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the external compensation transistor is used for responding to a reading and writing control signal to read an electrical signal of the source of the driving transistor and to compensate the threshold voltage of the driving transistor”. This is misdescriptive. See the SPEC, which recites “The external compensation transistor T4 is further used for responding to the reading and writing control signal RD to read the threshold voltage of the light-emitting element and to compensate the threshold voltage of the driving transistor T1” [0050]. Rather than reading “an electrical signal of the source of the driving transistor”, the disclosed device actually reads “the threshold voltage of the light-emitting element”; hence, the external compensation transistor appears to be used to compensate for the threshold voltage of the OLED, rather than to compensate for the threshold voltage of the driving transistor. For examination purposes, claim 1 shall be interpreted as --the external compensation transistor is used for responding to a reading and writing control signal to read an electrical signal of the light-emitting element and to compensate the threshold voltage of the light-emitting element--.
A similar recitation in claim 19 is similarly indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “the compensation transistor”. Which one?
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first writing control signal is the same as the second writing control signal”. This contradicts claim 1, which recites “the first writing control signal is different from the second writing control signal”.
Claim 5 recites “realize”. Realization is a subjective state of mind. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine whether “realize” occurs within a lifeless, mindless device or not.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “implement at least one of two functions”. Which two functions? A person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine, by inspecting a device implementing only a single function, whether or not said single function constitutes “at least one of two functions” or not. Furthermore, it is unclear whether or not the claimed device must be capable of performing some additional, unnamed, non-implemented function, in order to satisfy this claim limitation. Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 5 cannot be reasonably determined.
A similar recitation in claim 7 is similarly indefinite.
A similar recitation in claim 8 is similarly indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “an output terminal of the driving transistor”. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to a source or to a drain of the driving transistor.
A similar recitation in claim 6 is similarly indefinite.
A similar recitation in claim 9 is similarly indefinite.
A similar recitation in claim 10 is similarly indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “the internal compensation transistor is used for electrically connect the gate of the driving transistor and the source of the driving transistor”. This contradicts claim 1, which recites “an internal compensation transistor electrically connected between a gate of the driving transistor and a drain of the driving transistor”. Furthermore, the ability to electrically connect a gate to both a source and a drain is physically impossible in view of the internal compensation transistor’s electrical connections as depicted in the drawings.
Claim 7 recites “to electrically disconnect from the driving transistor”. To electrically disconnect what from the driving transistor?
A similar recitation in claim 8 is similarly indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “the external compensation transistor is used for read the threshold voltage of the driving transistor”. This is misdescriptive. The SPEC recites “The external compensation transistor T4 is used for responding to the reading and writing control signal RD to read the electrical signal of the light-emitting element (that is, the potential of the third node B)” [0045], suggesting that the threshold voltage of the OLED is read, rather than the threshold voltage of the driving transistor.
Claim 9 recites “a light-emitting external detection period located after the threshold voltage external detection period before the first frame”. It is unclear whether “a light-emitting external detection period” must occur “before the first frame”, or whether “the threshold voltage external detection period” merely occurs before the first frame.
Claim 9 recites “to electrically disconnect from the storage capacitor”. To electrically disconnect what from the storage capacitor?
Claim 10 recites “the external compensation transistor is used for transmitting a fourth signal to the light-emitting control transistor”. It is unclear whether this use must occur during the light-emitting external detection period or not.
Claim 10 recites “the external compensation transistor is further used for reading a threshold voltage of the light-emitting element in response to the reading and writing control signal and to compensate the threshold voltage of the driving transistor”. It is unclear whether both of these two uses must occur during the light-emitting external detection period or not. If both of these two uses must occur during the light-emitting external detection period, it is unclear how these two uses could possibly occur simultaneously with the use of the external compensation transistor for transmitting a fourth signal to the light-emitting control transistor.
Claim 12 recites “close to”. The term “close” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How close?
A similar recitation in claim 13 is similarly indefinite.
A similar recitation in claim 14 is similarly indefinite.
A similar recitation in claim 17 is similarly indefinite.
Similar recitations in claim 18 are similarly indefinite.
Claim 13 recites “the reading and writing control pulse … and the first writing control pulse”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 13 recites “the first writing control pulse … is staggered.” Staggered with what?
Claim 15 recites “the corresponding second writing control pulse”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
A similar recitation in claim 17 is similarly indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “a second light-emitting control pulse of the second light-emitting control signal” in line 4. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to “a second light-emitting control pulse of the second light-emitting control signal” of lines 1-2, or to some other, additional second light-emitting control pulse. The Examiner suggests --[[a]] said second light-emitting control pulse of the second light-emitting control signal--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the second writing control pulse … is interleaved with the first writing control pulse”. It is unclear how two and only two individual pulses could possibly be interpreted as “interleaved”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the … second writing control pulse of the first writing control signal”. This contradicts “second writing control pulse of the second writing control signal” which was previously recited.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the corresponding first light-emitting control pulse of the first writing control signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Furthermore, this contradicts “first light-emitting control pulse of the first light-emitting control signal” which was previously recited.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the corresponding first light-emitting control pulse of the reading and writing control signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Furthermore, this contradicts both “first light-emitting control pulse of the first light-emitting control signal” and “first light-emitting control pulse of the first writing control signal” which were previously recited.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the pixel driving circuit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a corresponding one of plurality of pixel driving circuits”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “plurality of pixel driving circuits”. Furthermore, it is unclear in what sense any gate driving circuit corresponds to one pixel driving circuit, insofar as a gate driving circuit is generally understood to address at least a row of pixels, rather than one corresponding pixel.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the corresponding plurality of pixel driving circuits”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Other pending claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Regarding claims 3-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20160071445 A1) in view of Yu et al (US 20230402008 A1).
As recited in independent claim 1, Kim et al shows a pixel driving circuit (see Fig. 8A, for example), comprising: a light-emitting element OLED; a driving transistor DT for generating a driving current (“a driving current Ioled flows through the organic element OLED” [0089]) according to a data signal Vdata to drive the light-emitting element OLED to emit light (“the organic element OLED is turned on” [0073]); a data writing transistor ST1 for transmitting the data signal (“first switch TFT ST1 applies a data voltage Vdata … to the gate node Ng” [0059]) to the driving transistor DT in response to a second write control signal (“in response to the scan control signal SCAN” [0059]); a storage capacitor Cst electrically connected to the driving transistor DT for storing (see Fig. 8A) the data signal Vdata; and an external compensation transistor ST2, and an external compensation transistor, wherein the external compensation transistor ST2 is electrically connected to a drain or a source (to the extent understood) of the driving transistor DT, and the external compensation transistor ST2 is used for responding to a reading and writing control signal SEN to read an electrical signal of the light-emitting element OLED (“In the sensing period Tsen, ... as shown in FIG. 8C, the gate-to-source voltage Vgs of the driving TFT DT is set such that it depends on the degradation degree of the organic element OLED and is indicative of and varies with the degradation degree of the organic OLED, and electrical charge for the drain-to-source current Ids of the driving TFT DT (which is determined by the set gate-to-source voltage Vgs) is stored in the line capacitor LCa of the sensing line 14B” [0075]; see Fig. 8C) and to compensate the threshold voltage of the light-emitting element (“again applying the initialization voltage to the source node of the driving TFT while the gate node is floated, the gate-to-source voltage set to be indicative of a degradation degree of the organic element as a result of again applying the initialization voltage to the source node of the driving TFT” [0018]).
As recited in independent claim 1, Kim et al is silent regarding an internal compensation transistor electrically connected between a gate of the driving transistor and a drain or a source (to the extent understood) of the driving transistor for compensating a threshold voltage of the driving transistor in response to a first writing control signal, wherein the first writing control signal is different from the second writing control signal; wherein the external compensation transistor is electrically connected to a light-emitting control transistor.
As recited in independent claim 1, Yu et al shows an internal compensation transistor T7-1 electrically connected (see electrical connections in Fig. 5, for example) between a gate (see node N1 in Fig. 5) of a driving transistor DTR and a drain or a source (to the extent understood) of the driving transistor DTR for compensating a threshold voltage (“Operations of the seventh pixel transistor T7-1 … may be controlled in response to a compensation scan signal GCj” [0104]) of the driving transistor DTR in response to a first writing control signal GCj, wherein the first writing control signal GCj is different from a second writing control signal GWj; further comprising a light-emitting control transistor T1 electrically connected to the drain or the source of the driving transistor DTR.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that internal compensation transistors and light-emitting control transistors were predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to add an internal compensation transistor and a light-emitting control transistor to the claimed locations in the pixel driving circuit of Kim et al as taught by Yu et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to promote uniformity of a display appearance by compensating for various threshold voltages among various driving transistors as was known in the art, and to prevent the OLED from emitting light prior to and after a light-emitting period as was known in the art.
As recited in claim 2, Kim et al is silent regarding a light-emitting control transistor electrically connected between the light-emitting element and the driving transistor for responding to a first light-emitting control signal to transmit the driving current to the light-emitting element; and a reset transistor electrically connected to the storage capacitor and the data writing transistor used for responding to a second light-emitting control signal to transmit a first signal to one end of the storage capacitor, wherein the first signal is different from a second signal loaded on the drain or the source of the driving transistor.
As recited in claim 2, Yu et al shows a light-emitting control transistor T2 electrically connected between a light-emitting element ED and the driving transistor DTR for responding to a first light-emitting control signal EMj to transmit the driving current to the light-emitting element ED; and a reset transistor T6 electrically connected to a storage capacitor C2 and a data writing transistor T5 used for responding to a second light-emitting control signal GRj to transmit a first signal VREF to one end of the storage capacitor C2, wherein the first signal VREF is different from a second signal VCINT loaded on the drain or the source of the driving transistor DTR.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a light-emitting control transistor and a reset transistor were predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to add a light-emitting control transistor and a reset transistor to the recited locations of the pixel driving circuit of Kim et al as taught by Yu et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to prevent illumination of the OLED during a non-emission period and to reset a storage capacitor as was known in the art.
As recited in independent claim 19, Kim et al shows a display panel (“display panel 10” [0037]), comprises: a panel body (“panel array” [0022]) comprising the pixel driving circuit (see P in Fig. 5, for example); and a driving chip SDIC electrically connected to the pixel driving circuit P to drive the pixel driving circuit to work; wherein pixel driving circuit, comprising: a light-emitting element OLED; a driving transistor DT for generating a driving current according to a data signal Vdata to drive the light-emitting element OLED to emit light; a data writing transistor ST1 for transmitting the data signal Vdata to the driving transistor DT in response to a second write control signal SCAN; a storage capacitor Cst electrically connected to the driving transistor DT for storing (see Fig. 8A) the data signal Vdata; and an external compensation transistor ST2, wherein the external compensation transistor ST2 is electrically connected to a light-emitting control transistor and a drain or a source (to the extent understood) of the driving transistor DT, and the external compensation transistor ST2 is used for responding to a reading and writing control signal SEN to read an electrical signal of the light-emitting element OLED (“In the sensing period Tsen, ... as shown in FIG. 8C, the gate-to-source voltage Vgs of the driving TFT DT is set such that it depends on the degradation degree of the organic element OLED and is indicative of and varies with the degradation degree of the organic OLED, and electrical charge for the drain-to-source current Ids of the driving TFT DT (which is determined by the set gate-to-source voltage Vgs) is stored in the line capacitor LCa of the sensing line 14B” [0075]; see Fig. 8C) and to compensate the threshold voltage of the light-emitting element (“again applying the initialization voltage to the source node of the driving TFT while the gate node is floated, the gate-to-source voltage set to be indicative of a degradation degree of the organic element as a result of again applying the initialization voltage to the source node of the driving TFT” [0018]).
As recited in independent claim 19, Kim et al is silent regarding an internal compensation transistor electrically connected between a gate of the driving transistor and a drain or a source of the driving transistor for compensating a threshold voltage of the driving transistor for compensating a threshold voltage of the driving transistor in response to a first writing control signal, wherein the first writing control signal is different from the second writing control signal.
See teachings, findings, and rationale above for independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 11 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for indicating allowable subject matter will be stated after the claims are amended to become reasonably clear and definite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
06/24/2026
Prosecution Insights