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 .
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 13, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (KR 20130046266 A).
As to claim 1, Jo discloses in figures 3a, 3b, 4, 5a and 5b, an array substrate comprising: a base substrate 100; a plurality of sub-pixels, located on the base substrate and arranged in an array along a first direction and a second direction; the first direction and the second direction intersecting with each other; wherein the array substrate comprises a plurality of pixel regions, each pixel region comprises sub-pixels with different colors arranged along the first direction, and different pixel regions have a same area; in a same pixel region, sub-pixel regions of at least two sub-pixels with different colors have different sizes in the first direction (red and green sub-pixels have different sizes); and the sub-pixel region comprises an effective light-exiting region; the array substrate further comprising: a plurality of data lines 140, arranged along the first direction; and a plurality of gate lines 110, arranged along the second direction, wherein the plurality of data lines and the plurality of gate lines intersect with each other to surround effective light-exiting regions of the plurality of sub-pixels, respective sub-pixels each comprise a pixel electrode 180 and a common electrode 190; and in a same pixel region, pixel electrodes of the at least two sub-pixels with different colors have different sizes in the first direction; each pixel region comprises a first color sub-pixel (red), a second color sub-pixel (green), and a third color sub-pixel (blue); and in a same pixel region, a sub-pixel region of the second color sub-pixel has the largest size in the first direction; respective sub-pixels each further comprise a transistor; and a first electrode (drain electrode 160 of the transistor is connected with a pixel electrode; the array substrate further comprises a common electrode line 120 electrically connected with a common electrode 190; in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the first electrode of the transistor of each sub-pixel overlaps with the common electrode line; and an overlapping area between the first electrode of the transistor of the second color sub-pixel and the common electrode line is smaller than an overlapping area between the first electrode of the transistor of a sub- pixel with other color and the common electrode line (figure 3a).
Jo does not disclose that a size ratio of the sub-pixel regions of the at least two sub-pixels with different colors in the first direction ranges from 1 to 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo such that a size ratio of the sub-pixel regions of the at least two sub-pixels with different colors in the first direction ranges from 1 to 2, in order to provide adequate color balance.
As to claim 4, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Jo further discloses wherein the plurality of data lines is unevenly distributed in the first direction due to the greater width of the green sub-pixel in the first direction, and the plurality of gate lines is evenly distributed in the second direction.
As to claim 5, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 4, but does not disclose that a size ratio of the pixel electrodes of the at least two sub-pixels with different colors in the first direction is not greater than 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo such that a size ratio of the pixel electrodes of the at least two sub-pixels with different colors in the first direction is not greater than 2, in order to provide adequate color balance.
As to claim 6, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1, but does not disclose wherein, in a same pixel region, a size ratio of sub-pixel regions of the at least two sub-pixels with different colors in the second direction ranges from 0.9 to 1.1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo wherein, in a same pixel region, a size ratio of sub-pixel regions of the at least two sub-pixels with different colors in the second direction ranges from 0.9 to 1.1, in order to optimize the color balance within each pixel region. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II.
As to claim 8, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Jo further discloses wherein the pixel electrode of the green sub-pixel has the largest size in the first direction.
As to claim 9, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1, but does not disclose wherein, in a same pixel region, a size ratio of a sub-pixel region of the first color sub- pixel to a sub-pixel region of the third color sub-pixel in the first direction ranges from 0.9 to 1.1; and/or, in a same pixel region, a size ratio of the pixel electrode of the first color sub- pixel to the pixel electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the first direction ranges from 0.9 to 1.1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo wherein, in a same pixel region, a size ratio of a sub-pixel region of the first color sub- pixel to a sub-pixel region of the third color sub-pixel in the first direction ranges from 0.9 to 1.1; and/or, in a same pixel region, a size ratio of the pixel electrode of the first color sub- pixel to the pixel electrode of the third color sub-pixel in the first direction ranges from 0.9 to 1.1, in order to optimize the color balance within each pixel region. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II.
As to claim 13, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Jo further discloses wherein a first portion in the common electrode line that overlaps with the first electrode of the transistor extends along the second direction; and a size of an overlapping portion between the first electrode of the transistor of the second color sub-pixel (green) and the first portion in the second direction is smaller than a size of an overlapping portion between the first electrode of the transistor of the sub-pixel with other color (red) and the first portion in the second direction.
As to claim 17, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Jo further discloses wherein each pixel region comprises a first color sub-pixel (green), a second color sub-pixel (red), and a third color sub-pixel (blue); and in a same pixel region, the pixel electrode of the first color sub-pixel has the largest size in the first direction.
As to claim 21, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Jo further discloses in figure 1, an opposite substrate arranged opposite to the array substrate, the opposite substrate comprising a color filter 24; a liquid crystal layer 30, located between the array substrate and the opposite substrate. Jo does not disclose a backlight source. However, it was conventional to provide a backlight source located on a side of the array substrate away from the liquid crystal layer in order to provide sufficient illumination light for display. 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 Jo by providing a backlight source located on a side of the array substrate away from the liquid crystal layer in order to provide sufficient illumination light for display. Jo does not disclose wherein a size ratio of sub-pixel regions of the at least two sub-pixels with different colors in the pixel region in the first direction ranges from 1 to 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo wherein a size ratio of sub-pixel regions of the at least two sub-pixels with different colors in the pixel region in the first direction ranges from 1 to 2, in order to provide adequate color balance. This would have further enabled white light emitted by the display apparatus to meet preset white balance coordinates without performing accurate color capture adjustment on the display apparatus.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (KR 20130046266 A) in view of Chen (US 2020/0117045).
Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 17, but does not disclose wherein, in the first direction, a size of the pixel electrode of the second color sub-pixel is larger than a size of the pixel electrode of the third color sub-pixel, a difference between the pixel electrode of the first color sub-pixel and the pixel electrode of the second color sub-pixel is a first difference, a difference between the pixel electrode of the second color sub-pixel and the pixel electrode of the third color sub-pixel is a second difference, and a ratio of the first difference to the second difference ranges from 0.9 to 1.1. Chen discloses in figures 4-6, wherein, in the first direction, a size of the pixel electrode of the second color sub-pixel (red) is larger than a size of the pixel electrode of the third color sub-pixel (blue). Chen discloses in paragraph [0009], a ratio of the area of the red sub-pixel to the area of the green sub-pixel to the area of the blue sub-pixel is 1:1.2:0.8. Therefore, a difference between the pixel electrode of the first color sub-pixel (green) and the pixel electrode of the second color sub-pixel (red) is a first difference (0.2), a difference between the pixel electrode of the second color sub-pixel (red) and the pixel electrode of the third color sub-pixel (blue) is a second difference (0.2), and a ratio of the first difference to the second difference ranges from 0.9 to 1.1 (0.2/0.2=1). According to the abstract, adjusting the area ratio of each color sub-pixel in this manner solves the problem of bluish image in low grayscale. 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 Jo wherein, in the first direction, a size of the pixel electrode of the second color sub-pixel is larger than a size of the pixel electrode of the third color sub-pixel, a difference between the pixel electrode of the first color sub-pixel and the pixel electrode of the second color sub-pixel is a first difference, a difference between the pixel electrode of the second color sub-pixel and the pixel electrode of the third color sub-pixel is a second difference, and a ratio of the first difference to the second difference ranges from 0.9 to 1.1, as disclosed by Chen, in order to prevent a bluish image in low grayscale.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (KR 20130046266 A) in view of Anandan et al. (US 2011/0176328).
As to claim 23, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the backlight source comprises a quantum dot material; a spectrum of the backlight source comprises a red light peak, a green light peak and a blue light peak; and a peak value of the red light peak is higher than a peak value of the green light peak; a ratio of a peak value of the blue light peak to the peak value of the red light peak ranges from 1.8 to 2.8. Anandan discloses in paragraph [0013], that quantum dots emit a sharp spectrum compared to traditional phosphors, such that backlights comprising quantum dots enhance the color gamut of the LCD. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo by providing a backlight comprising quantum dot material in order to enhance the color gamut of the LCD. Anandan further discloses in figures 3 and 4, wherein a spectrum of the backlight source comprises a red-light peak, a green-light peak and a blue-light peak. Anandan does disclose wherein a peak value of the red-light peak is higher than a peak value of the green-light peak, and a ratio of a peak value of the blue-light peak to the peak value of the red-light peak ranges from 1.8 to 2.8. However, it was known to optimize the spectral characteristics of the red, green and blue quantum dots to obtain an optimal color balance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Jo wherein a peak value of the red-light peak is higher than a peak value of the green-light peak, and a ratio of a peak value of the blue-light peak to the peak value of the red-light peak ranges from 1.8 to 2.8, in order to optimize the spectral characteristics of the red, green and blue quantum dots to obtain an optimal color balance. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II.
As to claim 25, Jo discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the backlight source comprises a fluorescent material; and a spectrum of the backlight source comprises a red light peak, a green light peak, and a blue light peak; a ratio of a peak value of the blue light peak to a peak value of the red light peak ranges from 0.7 to 0.9; and a ratio of a peak value of the green light peak to the peak value of the red light peak ranges from 0.15 to 0.28. Anandan discloses in paragraph [0013], that quantum dots emit a sharp spectrum compared to traditional phosphors, such that backlights comprising quantum dots enhance the color gamut of the LCD. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo by providing a backlight comprising quantum dot material in order to enhance the color gamut of the LCD. Anandan further discloses in figures 3 and 4, wherein a spectrum of the backlight source comprises a red-light peak, a green-light peak and a blue-light peak. Anandan does not disclose wherein a ratio of a peak value of the blue light peak to a peak value of the red-light peak ranges from 0.7 to 0.9, and a ratio of a peak value of the green-light peak to the peak value of the red-light peak ranges from 0.15 to 0.28. However, it was known to optimize the spectral characteristics of the red, green and blue quantum dots to obtain an optimal color balance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Jo wherein a ratio of a peak value of the blue light peak to a peak value of the red-light peak ranges from 0.7 to 0.9, and a ratio of a peak value of the green-light peak to the peak value of the red-light peak ranges from 0.15 to 0.28, in order to optimize the spectral characteristics of the red, green and blue quantum dots to obtain an optimal color balance. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14-16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested an array substrate comprising the combination required by claim 12, wherein, in a same pixel region, a ratio of charge pull-down voltages δVp of any two sub-pixels with different colors ranges from 0.9 to 1.1; δVp=[Cgs/(Cgs+Cst+Clc)]*(Vgh-Vgl), where, Cgs is a capacitor between the first electrode and a gate electrode of the transistor, Cst is a storage capacitor of a sub-pixel, Clc is a liquid crystal capacitor, Vgh is a potential at which a gate line potential is boosted to a high level, and Vgl is a potential at which a gate line potential is bucked to a low level. Claim 14 is objected to by virtue of its dependency.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested an array substrate comprising the combination required by claim 15, wherein the plurality of sub-pixels is arranged into a plurality of rows and columns of sub-pixels; sub- pixels located in a same row are arranged in the first direction, while sub-pixels located in a same column are arranged in the second direction; two gate lines are arranged between two adjacent rows of sub-pixels; and two columns of sub-pixels are arranged between two adjacent data lines; a second portion of the common electrode line that is arranged between the two columns of sub-pixels is arranged in the same layer as the gate line; and the first portion of the common electrode line overlaps with the gate line. Claim 16 is objected to by virtue of its dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights