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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 20 will be
objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
4. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 20: “… displays a white color ..." should be changed to --... displays the white color ...--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (U.S. Pub. No. US 2022/0285586 A1) in view of Park’366 (U.S. Pub. No. US 2017/0153366 A1).
As to claim 1, Yang (Figs. 1-23) teaches a display device (a display device; Fig. 1) comprising:
a display panel (a display area DA) including a pixel (a pixel PXL) (Fig. 1);
a data driver configured to provide a data voltage to the pixel (a data driver configured to provide data signals to the pixels PXL through data lines; [0075], lines 4-6) (Fig. 1);
a gate driver configured to provide a gate signal to the pixel (a scan driver configured to provide scan signals to the pixels PXL through scan lines; [0075], lines 1-2) (Fig. 1); and
a controller configured to control the data driver and the gate driver (a timing controller may control the scan driver, the emission driver, and the data driver; [0075], lines 6-8) (Fig. 1),
wherein the pixel (the pixel PXL) includes:
a first sub-pixel (a first sub-pixel SP1) including a first light emitting element (a first emission area MEMA) (Fig. 18B); and
a second sub-pixel (a fourth sub-pixel SP4) including:
a plurality of second light emitting elements (one first emission area MEMA and two second emission areas SEMA) emitting blue light (a blue color) (Fig. 18B).
Yang does not expressly teach [a second sub-pixel including:] a plurality of light conversion patterns having different light conversion functions and converting emitted blue light into white light.
Park’366 (Figs. 1-17) teaches
[a second sub-pixel (a second pixel region C2) including:] a plurality of light conversion patterns having different light conversion functions (the second pixel region C2 includes a second color conversion layer 1631 converting the blue light LB into red light and a third color conversion layer 1641 converting the blue light LB into green light; [0126], lines 5-9) and converting emitted blue light into white light (a white color; [0128], lines 5-7) (Figs. 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used color conversion layers as taught by Park’366 in a display device of Yang because the color conversion layers boost efficiency, brightness, and color gamut by converting a single light source, e.g., a blue LED, into specific Red, Green, and Blue light.
As to claim 2, Yang teaches
wherein each of the plurality of second light emitting elements (two second emission areas SEMA in the fourth sub-pixel SP4) is smaller than the first light emitting element (the first emission area MEMA in the first sub-pixel SP1) (Fig. 18B).
As to claim 3, Yang teaches
wherein the plurality of second light emitting elements are electrically connected in parallel (the emission unit EMU may include a plurality of light emitting elements LD connected in parallel between a first power line PL1 to which a first driving power supply VDD is applied and a second power line PL2 to which a second driving power supply VSS is applied; [0123], lines 1-6) (Figs. 7A-7D).
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Park’366 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. US 2020/0013766 A1).
As to claim 4, Yang and Park’366 teach the display device of claim 1.
Yang and Park’366 do not teach wherein each of the plurality of second light emitting elements displays a same color as the first light emitting element.
Kim (Figs. 1-17) teaches
wherein each of the plurality of second light emitting elements displays a same color as the first light emitting element (e.g., all of the first, second, and third light emitting elements LD1, LD2, and LD3 may be formed of blued light emitting diodes, which emit blue light; [0108], lines 3-6; at least a portion of the third light emitting elements LD3 of the third sub-pixel area SPA3; [0123], lines 10-12) (Figs. 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the same color, e.g., blue, as taught by Kim in all light emitting elements in a display device of Yang as modified by Park’366 because the use of the same color in all light emitting elements may enhance the production efficiency of the light emitting display device.
8. Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Park’366 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Choi (U.S. Pub. No. US 2014/0145586 A1).
As to claim 14, Yang and Park’366 teach the display device of claim 1.
Yang also teaches wherein the second sub-pixel includes the first to third light conversion patterns (a light conversion pattern layer LCP on the first emission area MEMA and the two second emission areas SEMA in the fourth sub-pixel SP4) (Figs. 18A-18B and 22).
Yang and Park’366 do not expressly teach [wherein] the first sub-pixel includes: a (1-1)th sub-pixel displaying a first color; a (1-2)th sub-pixel displaying a second color; and a (1-3)th sub-pixel displaying a third color, the (1-1)th sub-pixel includes a first light conversion pattern, the (1-2)th sub-pixel includes a second light conversion pattern, the (1-3)th sub-pixel includes a third light conversion pattern.
Choi (Figs. 1-7) teaches [wherein]
the first sub-pixel (the fourth pixel P4) includes:
a (1-1)th sub-pixel (a first subpixel SP1) displaying a first color (a first color; [0047], lines 1-5) (Figs. 1-2);
a (1-2)th sub-pixel (a second subpixel SP2) displaying a second color (a second color; [0047], lines 1-5) (Figs. 1-2); and
a (1-3)th sub-pixel (a third subpixel SP3) displaying a third color (a third color; [0047], lines 1-5) (Figs. 1-2),
the (1-1)th sub-pixel (the first subpixel SP1) includes a first light conversion pattern (an organic layer 44) (Figs. 1-2),
the (1-2)th sub-pixel (the second subpixel SP2) includes a second light conversion pattern (an organic layer 45) (Figs. 1-2),
the (1-3)th sub-pixel (the third subpixel SP3) includes a third light conversion pattern (an organic layer 46) (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a pixel functioning as a white pixel as taught by Choi in a display device of Yang as modified by Park’366 because the pixel functioning as a white pixel can easily increase the luminance of the organic light-emitting display device.
As to claim 16, Yang and Park’366 teach the display device of claim 1.
Yang and Park’366 do not expressly teach wherein the first sub-pixel includes: a (1-1)th sub-pixel displaying a first color; a (1-2)th sub-pixel displaying a second color; and a (1-3)th sub-pixel displaying a third color, the (1-1)th sub-pixel includes a first color filter, the (1-2)th sub-pixel includes a second color filter, the (1-3)th sub-pixel includes a third color filter, and the second sub-pixel does not include the first to third color filters.
Choi (Figs. 1-7) teaches wherein
the first sub-pixel (the pixels P1, P2 and P3; Figs. 1-2) includes:
a (1-1)th sub-pixel (a first pixel P1) displaying a first color (a first color, e.g., red);
a (1-2)th sub-pixel (a second pixel P2) displaying a second color (a second color, e.g., green); and
a (1-3)th sub-pixel (a third pixel P3) displaying a third color (a third color, e.g., blue) ([0046], lines 3-7) (Figs. 1-2),
the (1-1)th sub-pixel (the first pixel P1) includes a first color filter (a color filter 71) (Figs. 3-5),
the (1-2)th sub-pixel (the first pixel P2) includes a second color filter (a color filter 72) (Figs. 3-5),
the (1-3)th sub-pixel (the third pixel P3) includes a third color filter (a color filter 73) (Figs. 3-5), and
the second sub-pixel (the fourth pixel P4) does not include the first to third color filters (the color filters 71, 72 and 73) (Figs. 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a pixel functioning as a white pixel as taught by Choi in a display device of Yang as modified by Park’366 because the pixel functioning as a white pixel can easily increase the luminance of the organic light-emitting display device.
9. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Park’366 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. No. US 2015/0371605 A1).
As to claim 7, Yang and Park’366 teach the display device of claim 1.
Yang and Park’366 do not expressly teach wherein the first light emitting element, and the plurality of second light emitting elements are off in the first mode.
Wu (Figs. 1-11) teaches wherein
the first light emitting element (red, green, blue organic light-emitting diodes in the OLED display) is on in a first mode (a mode of a left graph in Fig. 8) (Fig. 8), and
the plurality of second light emitting elements (white diode in the OLED display in combination with the white pixel of Park’366) are off in the first mode (the mode of a left graph in Fig. 8) (Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have turned off the white light emitting diode as taught by Wu in a display device of Yang as modified by Park’366 because the white organic light emitting diode is turned off to save the operational power of the display.
As to claim 8, Wu teaches wherein
the first light emitting element (red, green, blue organic light-emitting diodes in the OLED display) is on in a second mode (a mode of a right graph in Fig. 8) (Fig. 8), and
the plurality of second light emitting elements (white diode in the OLED display in combination with the white pixel of Park’366) are on in the second mode (the mode of a right graph in Fig. 8) (Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have turned on the white light emitting diode as taught by Wu in a display device of Yang as modified by Park’366 because the white organic light emitting diode is turned on to improve the luminance of the display.
As to claim 9, Wu teaches
wherein a peak luminance (MAX in brightness) in the second mode (the mode of a right graph in Fig. 8) is higher (by brightness gain) than a peak luminance in the first mode (the mode of a left graph in Fig. 8) (Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have turned on the white light emitting diode as taught by Wu in a display device of Yang as modified by Park’366 because the white organic light emitting diode is turned on to improve the luminance of the display.
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Park’366 as applied to claim 1, in view of Choi as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Pub. No. US 2021/0408137 A1).
As to claim 15, Yang, Park’366, and Choi teach the display device of claim 14.
Yang, Park’366, and Choi do not expressly teach wherein the first to third light conversion patterns in the second sub-pixel overlap each other.
Lee (Figs.1-5) teaches
wherein the first to third light conversion patterns (the red light emitting layer 32R, the green light emitting layer 32G, the first/second blue light emitting layer 32B1/32B2) in the second sub-pixel (the first subpixel SP1 which is a white subpixel; [0042], lines 10-12) overlap each other (Figs. 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a light emitting unit with three stacks as taught by Lee in a display device of Yang as modified by Park’366 and Choi because the light emitted from the light emitting unit may be white light in which the blue light, the red light, and the green light are mixed for improving luminance of the display.
11. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park’946 (U.S. Pub. No. US 2008/0042946 A1) in view of Cancel Olmo (U.S. Pub. No. US 2018/0269266 A1).
As to claim 19, Park’946 (Figs. 1-7) teaches a display device (an organic light-emitting display apparatus; Fig. 5) comprising:
a display panel including a pixel (a light-emitting display panel 100, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, including a plurality of unit pixels P; [0071], lines 1-2) (Figs. 1-2 and 5);
a data driver (a source driver 250) configured to provide a data voltage (the stored red/green/blue/white data voltage) to the pixel (the unit pixels P) ([0088]-[0089]) (Figs. 5-6);
a gate driver (a gate driver 270) configured to provide a gate signal (first to fourth gate signals G1, G2, G3 and G4) to the pixel (the unit pixels P) ([0098], lines 1-4) (Figs. 5 and 7); and
a controller (a controller 210) configured to control the data driver (the source driver 250) and the gate driver (the gate driver 270) ([0073], lines 3-6; Fig. 5), wherein the pixel (the unit pixels P) includes:
a second sub-pixel (the sub-pixel P4) including a second light emitting element (a fourth light-emitting element EL4) including an organic light emitting diode (the fourth light-emitting element EL4 in the light-emitting layer 185 including an organic luminescence layer emitting a specific colored light;[0066], lines 1-4) displaying a white color (the fourth sub-pixel P4 may include a light-emitting layer generating a white color; [0043], lines 7-9) (Figs. 1-2 and 4).
Park’946 does not expressly teach [wherein the pixel includes:] a first sub-pixel including a first light emitting element including an inorganic light emitting diode displaying one of a red color or a green color.
Cancel Olmo (Figs. 1-12) teaches [wherein the pixel includes:]
a first sub-pixel including a first light emitting element including an inorganic light emitting diode displaying one of a red color or a green color (a red inorganic light emitting diode; [0102], lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an inorganic light-emitting diode as taught by Cancel Olmo in an organic light-emitting display apparatus of Park’266 because an inorganic light-emitting diode provides high brightness, durability, long lifespan, and energy efficiency, making the inorganic light-emitting diode suitable for the display.
As to claim 20, Park’946 teaches
wherein the second light emitting element (the fourth light-emitting element EL4) displays a white color (the fourth sub-pixel P4 may include a light-emitting layer generating a white color; [0043], lines 7-9) (Figs. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 17-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, Yang, Park’366, Kim, Wu, Choi, Lee, Park’946, and Cancel Olmo, either individually or in combination, does not teach a limitation “wherein the display panel is driven in one of a plurality of driving modes that independently modulate emission time and driving current for different sub-pixel groups as a function of grayscale” of claim 17 in combination with other limitations of the base claim.
Claims 10-12 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: The prior art of record, Yang, Park’366, Kim, Wu, Choi, Lee, Park’946, and Cancel Olmo, either individually or in combination, does not teach a limitation “wherein the display panel is driven in one of a (1-1)th mode, a (1-2)th mode, and a second mode, an emission time of the first light emitting element is controlled according to a grayscale in the (1-1)th mode, a magnitude of a driving current applied to the first light emitting element is controlled according to the grayscale in the (1-2)th mode, the emission time of the first light emitting element and the magnitude of the driving current applied to the first light emitting element are controlled according to the grayscale in the second mode, and an emission time of the plurality of second light emitting elements and a magnitude of a driving current applied to the plurality of second light emitting elements are controlled according to the grayscale in the second mode” of claim 10 in combination with other limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7-9, and 14-16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In view of amendment, references of Yang, Park’366, Kim, Wu, Choi, and Lee, have been used for the new grounds of rejection.
As to claims 19-20, Applicant's arguments filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Cancel Olmo does not disclose the white sub-pixel and Park’946 discloses RGBW sub-pixels constituted by an organic light-emitting layer so that they differ from the present claim 19. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. Park’946 teaches that the fourth light-emitting element EL4 in the light-emitting layer 185 including an organic luminescence layer emitting a specific colored light ([0066], lines 1-4; Figs. 1 and 4) and the fourth sub-pixel P4 may include a light-emitting layer generating a white color ([0043], lines 7-9; Fig. 1-2) while Cancel Olmo teaches that a first sub-pixel includes a red inorganic light emitting diode ([0102], lines 3-6). Thus, a sub-pixel with the red inorganic light emitting diode of Cancel Olmo is substituted for a sub-pixel of Park’046 in the claim.
Therefore, the Office maintains the rejections as recited above.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hashimoto (U.S. Pub. No. US 2021/0035493 A1) is cited to teach a display device including a pixel which includes a light emitting unit and a driving circuit for driving the light emitting unit, wherein, when the light emitting unit is driven in a pulse width modulation (PWM) mode with a PWM period, the PWM period comprises a plurality of pulse controllable periods.
Kim (U.S. Pub. No. US 2019/0066582 A1) is cited to teach a gate driver capable of securing operation stability of an emission driver and improving reliability of the emission driver and a display device including the gate driver.
Inquiry
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwang-Su Yang whose telephone number is (571)270-7307. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during 9:00am-6:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KWANG-SU YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623