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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the applicant argues that subject matter recited in claims 1 and 11 is supported by the specification. The Office respectfully submits that the specification does not disclose "voltage levels of the first initialization voltage and the third initialization voltage are the same, wherein a voltage level of the second initialization voltage is different from the voltage levels level of the first initialization voltage". In particular, Fig.10 of the present application discloses a color dragging phenomenon in which an organic light emitting diode emits light later than organic light emitting diodes of other colors. Figs. 12-14 further discloses a method of preventing the color dragging problem by individually controlling the initialization voltage applied to each light emitting diode when a target maximum luminance L_tar is equal, greater than, or less than a reference maximum luminance L_ref. However, the specification does not disclose a method of comparing the first, second, and third initialization voltages. In particular, the specification does not explicitly/implicitly disclose voltage levels of first and third initialization voltages applied to first and third light emitting diodes are the same; and a voltage level of second initialization voltage applied to the second light emitting diode is different from the voltage levels of the first and third initialization voltages.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In view of amendment, a new reference of Park et al. (US Pub. 2015/0279278 A1) is applied to a new ground of rejection.
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 and 11 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claims 1 and 11 recite a display device comprising a first pixel, a second pixel, and a third pixel. The first pixel comprises a first light emitting diode emitting a first color configured to receive a first initialization voltage. The second pixel comprises a second light emitting diode emitting a second color configured to receive a second initialization voltage. The third pixel comprises a third light emitting diode emitting a third color configured to receive a third initialization voltage. The first initialization voltage is the same as the second initialization voltage. The second initialization voltage is different from the first initialization voltage and the third initialization voltage. This feature is not disclosed in the specification. More specifically, the specification does not disclose characteristics of a third initialization voltage associated with a third pixel emitting a third color. The specification does not disclose that “third initialization voltage is the same as the first initialization voltage” and “the third initialization is different from the second initialization voltage”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as being dependent on base claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-11, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US Pub. 2015/0279278 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Park’278”).
Regarding claim 1; Park’278 teaches a display device comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (Vint3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vint2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vint1)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
230
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig.3 of Park reproduced)
a first pixel (a red pixel, Fig.3) comprising a first electrode initialization transistor (a transistor T7R) and a first light emitting diode (an OLEDR) to emit light having a first color (the OLEDR emits a red color), the first light emitting diode comprising a first electrode (Fig.3, the OLEDR comprises an anode connected to a drain terminal of a driving transistor T1R),
a second pixel (a green pixel, Fig.3) comprising a second electrode initialization transistor (a transistor T7G) and a second light emitting diode (an OLEDG) to emit light having a second color (the OLEDG emits a green color), the second light emitting diode comprising a second electrode (Fig.3, the OLEDG comprises an anode connected to a drain terminal of a driving transistor T1G); and
a third pixel (a blue pixel, Fig.3) comprising a third electrode initialization transistor (a transistor T7B) and a third light emitting diode (an OLEDB) to emit light having a third color (Fig.3, the OLEDB emits a blue color), the third light emitting diode comprising a third electrode (Fig.3, the OLEDB comprises an anode connected to a drain terminal of a driving transistor T1B),
wherein cathode electrodes of the first, second, and third light emitting diodes are configured to receive a first power voltage (Fig.3, the cathode electrodes of the OLEDR, OLEDG, and OLEDB are connected to a second power voltage ELVSS),
wherein the first electrode of the first light emitting diode is configured to receive a first initialization voltage through the first electrode initialization transistor (Fig.3 reproduced above, the anode of the OLEDR receives a first initialization voltage Vint1 through the transistor T7R),
wherein the second electrode of the second light emitting diode is configured to receive a second initialization voltage through the second electrode initialization transistor (Fig.3 reproduced above, the anode of the OLEDG receives a second initialization voltage Vint2 through the transistor T7G),
wherein the third electrode of the third light emitting diode is configured to receive a third initialization voltage through the third electrode initialization transistor (Fig.3 reproduced above, the anode of the OLEDB receives a third initialization voltage Vint3 through the transistor T7B),
wherein voltage levels of the first initialization voltage and the third initialization voltage are the same, wherein a voltage level of the second initialization voltage is different from the voltage level of the first initialization voltage (Para. [0073-0074], at low gradation, the light emitting diode OLEDG may not emit light. Meanwhile, only the light emitting diodes OLEDR and OLEDB emit light. In order to prevent the color purple from being visually perceived, the charging speed of the light emitting diode OLEDG may be increased. In order to increase the charging speed of the light emitting diode OLEDG, the level of the initialization voltage VINT that is applied to the light emitting diode OLEDG of the second sub-pixel may be increased. In other words, the first initialization voltage Vint1 and the third initialization voltage Vint3 are the same. The second initialization voltage Vint2 is higher than the first and third initialization voltages Vint2 and Vint3), and
wherein the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel are connected to same scan lines (Fig.3, the red pixel, the green pixel, and the blue pixels are connected to the same scan lines Sn-1 and Sn).
Regarding claim 4; Park’278 teaches the display device of claim 1 as discussed above. Park’278 further teaches the voltage level of the first initialization voltage is greater than a voltage level of the first power voltage (see the analysis of claim 1, the second initialization voltage Vint2 corresponding to the green pixel is greater than the first initialization voltage Vint1 corresponding to the red pixel and the third initialization voltage Vint3 corresponding to the blue pixel. However, the mapping between the pixels of Park’278 and the pixels as claimed may be interchangeable. For example, the green pixel of Park’278 may be mapped to the first pixel as claimed. As such, Park’278 further teaches “the voltage level of the first initialization voltage is greater than a voltage level of the first power voltage”).
Regarding claim 5; Park’278 teaches the display device of claim 1 as discussed above. Park’278 further teaches the voltage level of the second initialization voltage is greater than a voltage level of the first power voltage (see the analysis of claim 1, the second initialization voltage Vint2 corresponding to the green pixel is greater than the first initialization voltage Vint1 corresponding to the red pixel and the third initialization voltage Vint3 corresponding to the blue pixel).
Regarding claim 6; Park’278 teaches the display device of claim 1 as discussed above. Park’278 further teaches band gaps of the first, second, and third light emitting diodes are different from each other (Fig.3, Park’278 discloses the red pixel including a red light emitting diode, the green pixel including a green light emitting diode, and the blue pixel including a blue light emitting diode. Therefore, Park’278 further teaches that band gaps of the first, second, and third light emitting diodes are different (i.e., different color has a different band gap)).
Regarding claim 10; Park’278 teaches the display device of claim 1 as discussed above. Park’278 further teaches the first color is red, wherein the second color is green, and wherein the third color is blue (see Fig.3 and the analysis of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11; Park’278 teaches an electronic device (a display device 100, Fig.1) comprising: a processor (a timing control unit 10, Fig.1) supplying an image signal (para. [0063]); and a display device (an organic light emitting display 100, Fig.1) displaying an image based on the image signal (para. [0060]), the display device comprising: a first pixel comprising a first electrode initialization transistor and a first light emitting diode to emit light having a first color, the first light emitting diode comprising a first electrode; a second pixel comprising a second electrode initialization transistor and a second light emitting diode to emit light having a second color, the second light emitting diode comprising a second electrode; and a third pixel comprising a third electrode initialization transistor and a third light emitting diode to emit light having a third color, the third light emitting diode comprising a third electrode, wherein cathode electrodes of the first, second, and third light emitting diodes are configured to receive a first power voltage, wherein the first electrode of the first light emitting diode is configured to receive a first initialization voltage through the first electrode initialization transistor, wherein the second electrode of the second light emitting diode is configured to receive a second initialization voltage through the second electrode initialization transistor, wherein the third electrode of the third light emitting diode is configured to receive a third initialization voltage through the third electrode initialization transistor, wherein voltage levels of the first initialization voltage and the third initialization voltage are same, and wherein a voltage level of the second initialization voltage is different from the voltage levels level of the first initialization voltage, and wherein the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel are connected to same scan lines (similar to the analysis of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14; Park’278 teaches the electronic device of claim 11 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15; Park’278 teaches the electronic device of claim 11 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 5.
Regarding claim 16; Park’278 teaches the electronic device of claim 11 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20; Park’278 teaches the electronic device of claim 11 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 10. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 10.
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.
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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. 2015/0279278 A1, referred to as “Park’278”) in view of Park et al. (US Pub. 2015/0364076 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Park’076”).
Regarding claim 2; Park’278 teaches the display device of claim 1 as discussed above. Park’278 does not teach the voltage level of the first initialization voltage is greater than a voltage level of the first power voltage.
Park’076 teaches the voltage level of the first initialization voltage is greater than a voltage level of the first power voltage (Fig.2, Park’076 discloses a pixel circuit PX in which an initialization voltage Vint is supplied to an anode of an OLED. Para. [0075, 0082], Park’076 further discloses that the OLED can have a forward bias. In particular, the initialization voltage Vint is greater than a second power voltage ELVSS).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park’278 to include the teaching of Park’076 of initializing an anode of an OLED by an initialization voltage greater than a second power supply to have a forward bias. The motivation would have been in order to increase the charging speed of the OLED.
Regarding claim 3; Park’278 teaches the display device of claim 1 as discussed above. Park’278 does not teach the voltage level of the second initialization voltage is greater than a voltage level of the first power voltage.
Park’076 teaches the voltage level of the second initialization voltage is greater than a voltage level of the first power voltage (Fig.2, Park’076 discloses a pixel circuit PX in which an initialization voltage Vint is supplied to an anode of an OLED. Para. [0075, 0082], Park’076 further discloses that the OLED can have a forward bias. In particular, the initialization voltage Vint is greater than a second power voltage ELVSS).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park’278 to include the teaching of Park’076 of initializing an anode of an OLED by an initialization voltage greater than a second power supply to have a forward bias. The motivation would have been in order to increase the charging speed of the OLED.
Regarding claim 12; Park’278 teaches the electronic device of claim 11 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13; Park’278 teaches the electronic device of claim 11 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 3.
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. 2015/0279278 A1, referred to as “Park’278”) in view of Hwang (US Pub. 2016/0125809 A1).
Regarding claim 7; Park’278 teaches the display device of claim 1 as discussed above. Park’278 further teaches the first pixel (the red pixel, Fig.3) further comprises a first driving transistor (a driving transistor T1R, Fig.3) and a first initialization transistor (a transistor T4R), the first driving transistor being configured to receive a first voltage through the first initialization transistor (see Fig.3), wherein the second pixel (the green pixel, Fig.3) further comprises a second driving transistor (a driving transistor T1G) and a second initialization transistor (a transistor T4G), the second driving transistor being configured to receive a second voltage through the second initialization transistor (Fig.3), wherein the third pixel (the blue pixel, Fig.3) further comprises a third driving transistor (a driving transistor T1B) and a third initialization transistor (a transistor T4B), the third driving transistor being configured to receive a third voltage through the third initialization transistor (Fig.3).
Park’278 does not explicitly teach that voltage levels of the first, second, and third voltages are same.
Hwang teaches voltage levels of the first, second, and third voltages are same (Fig.3, a first initialization voltage Vint_1 is supplied to a gate terminal of a driving transistor through a transistor T4. The first initialization voltages Vint_1 applied to a first pixel, a second pixel, and a third pixel are the same).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park’278 to include the teaching of Hwang of providing the same initialization voltage applied to a gate electrode of a driving transistor of every pixel. The motivation would have been in order to simplify the method of driving the display device.
Regarding claim 8; Park’278 in view of Hwang teaches the display device of claim 7 as discussed above. Park’278 does not teach the first, second, and third initialization transistors are N-type transistors (Particularly, the transistors in the display device of Park’278 are P-type transistors).
Hwang teaches the first, second, and third initialization transistors are N-type transistors (para. [0108], the pixel may be configured with N-type transistors).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park’278 to include the N-type transistors of Hwang. The motivation would have been in order to increase mobility and switching speed.
Regarding claim 9; Park’278 in view of Hwang teaches the display device of claim 8 as discussed above. Park’278 further teaches the first, second, and third electrode initialization transistors are P-type transistors (Fig.3, para. [0100], the transistors T7R, T7G, and T7B are P-type transistors).
Regarding claim 17; Park’278 teaches the electronic device of claim 11 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 7.
Regarding claim 18; Park’278 in view of Hwang teaches the electronic device of claim 17 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 8. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 8.
Regarding claim 19; Park’278 in view of Hwang teaches the electronic device of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 9. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 9.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623