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 Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Species I (Figs. 9A-C), claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 7/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. Applicant is suggested/reminded to disclose relevant prior art(s) or other information that may be material to the patentability of the invention in a pending application. The prior art information must be submitted in the form of an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”) (see MPEP 609 & 2001 and 37 CFR 1.56).
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claim 1, line 9: in front of “the third”, delete “or” and insert --and--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
5. Claims 1-4, 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2022/0209193) in view of Choo et al. (US 2023/0240094).
Re claim 1, Shin teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1, 4 & 5, [0075, 0088], a display device comprising:
-a first subpixel (Pr) including a first light emitting element (left 200) configured to emit light of a first color and a first driving transistor (left TFT) configured to drive the first light emitting element (200);
-a second subpixel (Pb) including a second light emitting element (middle 200) configured to emit light of a second color and a second driving transistor (middle TFT) configured to drive the second light emitting element (200); and
-a third subpixel (Pg) including a third light emitting element (right 200) configured to emit light of a third color and a third driving transistor (right TFT) configured to drive the third light emitting element (200).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shin does not explicitly teach wherein at least two of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, or the third subpixel have different contact hole area densities.
Choo teaches at least two of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, or the third subpixel have different contact hole area densities (e.g., contact holes OP5 vs. OP6 vs. OP7 in T1, T2, T3 areas having different widths, Fig. 4C, [0143]).
As taught by Choo, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above to obtain at least two of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, or the third subpixel having different contact hole area densities as claimed, because area density of contact hole is known to affect device properties and would depend on the desired device density and the desired device characteristics and it aids in effectively controlling LEDs and improving device performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Choo in combination Shin due to above reason.
Re claim 2 & 4, in combination cited above, Choo teaches wherein the first, second and third driving transistors have different current sensitivities to voltage fluctuations; and wherein the first, second, and third driving transistors have different S-factor values (e.g., based on different structures in each T1-T3).
Re claim 3, Shin teaches wherein the first, second, and third driving transistors have different current distributions according to voltage fluctuations (e.g., based on different widths of contact holes in each T1-T3).
Re claim 11, Shin teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1, 4 & 5, [0075, 0088], a display device comprising:
-a red subpixel (Pr) including a red light emitting element (left 200) and a first driving transistor (left TFT) for driving the red light emitting element (200);
-a green subpixel (Pb) including a green light emitting element (middle 200) and a second driving transistor (middle TFT) for driving the green light emitting element (200); and
-a blue subpixel (Pg) including a blue light emitting element (right 200) and a third driving transistor (right TFT) for driving the blue light emitting element (200).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shin does not explicitly teach wherein at least two of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the blue subpixel have different contact hole areas.
Choo teaches at least two of the red subpixel, the green subpixel, and the green subpixel have different contact hole areas (e.g., contact holes OP5 vs. OP6 vs. OP7 in T1, T2, T3 areas having different widths, Fig. 4C, [0129, 0143]).
As taught by Choo, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above to obtain different contact hole areas in at least two subpixels as claimed, because area of contact hole is known to affect device properties and would depend on the desired device density and the desired device characteristics and it aids in effectively controlling LEDs and improving device performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Choo in combination Shin due to above reason.
Re claim 12, in combination cited above, Choo teaches, Fig. 4C, [0096, 0143], wherein each of the red, green, and blue subpixels have different ratios of a contact hole area (of OP5-OP7) to a same semiconductor layer area (of CH1-3) (see also Shin’s teaching in Fig. 5).
Re claim 13, in combination cited above, Choo teaches, Fig. 4C, [0096, 0143], wherein the contact hole area includes an area of a contact hole (OP5-7) overlapping the semiconductor layer (CH1-3) in each of red, green, and blue subpixels (see also Shin’s teaching in Fig. 5).
Re claim 14, in combination cited above, Choo teaches, Fig. 4H, [0148], wherein the contact hole area further includes an area of a contact hole (OP9-11) disposed around the semiconductor layer (CH1-3) in each of the red, green, and blue subpixels (see also Shin’s teaching in Fig. 5).
Re claim 20, in combination cited above, Choo teaches, Fig. 4C, [0143], wherein a ratio of the contact hole area to the semiconductor layer area in each of the red, green, and blue subpixels is in a range from 5% to 32%, inclusive (based on different widths, different etching ratios of contact holes).
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular a ratio of the contact hole area, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the ratio is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the ratio is for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another ratio. Indeed, it has been held that mere ratio limitation(s) is prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed ratio, because a change in ratio would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
6. Claims 5, 6, 8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin modified by Choo as applied to claims 1, 4 & 11 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2022/0173206).
The teachings of Shin/Choo have been discussed above.
Re claim 5, Shin teaches, Fig. 3B, wherein the first, second, and third subpixels are red, green, and blue subpixels (Pr, Pb, Pg), respectively, the red subpixel (Pr) has a first light emitting area, the green subpixel (Pg) has a second light emitting area, and the blue subpixel (Pb) has a third light emitting area larger than the second light emitting area (of Pg).
Shin/Choo does not explicitly teach the green subpixel has a second light emitting area larger than the first light area.
Lim teaches, Fig. 2, [0040], the green subpixel (G) has a second light emitting area larger than the first light area (of R).
As taught by Lim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above to obtain the green subpixel having a second light emitting area larger than the first light area as claimed, because it aids in improving lifespan of the LEDs.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Lim in combination Shin/Choo due to above reason.
Re claim 6, in combination cited above, Choo teaches wherein the red subpixel has a first contact hole area density, the green subpixel has a second contact hole area density smaller than the first contact hole area density, and the blue subpixel has a third contact hole area density smaller than the second contact hole area density (based on contact holes formed in different widths by different etching ratios, Fig. 4C, [0129, 0143]) (see also Shin’s teaching in Fig. 5).
Re claim 8, in combination cited above, Choo teaches, Fig. 3, [0129], wherein each of the first, second, and third light emitting elements included in the red, green, and blue subpixels is a red light emitting element, a green light emitting element, and a blue light emitting element, respectively (e.g., red, green & blue as primary colors of emission layer 370 in LED) (see also Shin’s teaching in Fig. 5).
Re claim 15, Shin teaches, Fig. 3B, wherein the red subpixel (Pr) has a first light emitting area, the green subpixel (Pg) has a second light emitting area, and the blue subpixel (Pb) has a third light emitting area larger than the second light emitting area (of Pg).
Shin/Choo does not explicitly teach the green subpixel has a second light emitting area larger than the first light area.
Lim teaches, Fig. 2, [0040], the green subpixel (G) has a second light emitting area larger than the first light area (of R).
As taught by Lim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above to obtain the green subpixel having a second light emitting area larger than the first light area as claimed, because it aids in improving lifespan of the LEDs.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Lim in combination Shin/Choo due to above reason.
Re claim 16, in combination cited above, Lim teaches wherein an efficiency of the green light emitting element is greater than an efficiency of the red light emitting element, and the efficiency of the red light emitting element is greater than an efficiency of the blue light emitting element (based on differences in areas, lifespan of LEDs, [0040]).
Re claim 17, in combination cited above, Choo teaches wherein the red subpixel has a first contact hole area, the green subpixel has a second contact hole area smaller than the first contact hole area, and the blue subpixel has a third contact hole area smaller than the second contact hole area (based on different widths of contact holes, [0143]) (see also Shin’s teaching in Fig. 5).
Re claim 18, in combination cited above, Choo teaches wherein the first driving transistor has a first S-factor value, the second driving transistor has a second S-factor value smaller than the first S-factor value, and the third driving transistor has a third S-factor value smaller than the second S-factor value (based on different widths of contact holes, [0143]).
7. Claims 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin modified by Choo/Lim as applied to claims 1, 4 & 5 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2019/0355793).
The teachings of Shin/Choo/Lim have been discussed above.
Re claim 9, Shin teaches, Fig. 5, [0144], wherein each of the first, second, and third light emitting elements included in the red, green, and blue subpixels includes red, green, and blue color filters (531-533), respectively.
Shin/Choo/Lim does not explicitly teach white light emitting elements in common.
Oh teaches white light emitting elements in common [0088].
As taught by Oh, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain white light emitting elements as claimed, because white LED is common and widely used in display device, and it aids in reducing WAD phenomenon of the display device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Oh in combination Shin/Choo/Lim due to above reason.
Re claims 10 & 19, Shin teaches, Fig. 5, [0075], a white subpixel including a white light emitting element (see Oh’s teaching) and a fourth driving transistor (TFT in subpixel) configured to drive the white light emitting element, wherein the fourth driving transistor (TFT in subpixel) has a same S-factor value as one of the first, second, and third driving transistors (TFT).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. (US 2023/0217764, Fig. 1) discloses light emitting display device with R, G, B & W subpixels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 7/31/26
Prosecution Insights