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 following subject matter must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 6 recites “the first pixel electrode and the first common electrode do not overlap each other in a thickness direction of the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element … and wherein the first common electrode is above the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element,” which is not illustrated by the drawings. For example, the embodiment illustrated by: (1) Fig. 13 does not illustrate the first common electrode (CE) being above the first light-emitting element (LE1) and the second light-emitting element (LE2) and (2) Fig. 16 does not illustrate the first pixel electrode (PXE) and the first common electrode (CE) do not overlap each other in a thickness direction of the first light-emitting element (LE1) and the second light-emitting element (LE2).
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.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 13, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220084461A1) in view of Park et al. (US20180190731A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches in Figs. 1-3 a display device comprising:
a first pixel (PXL1) in a display area (110) {Fig. 1; [0071]}, and comprising:
a first pixel electrode (EL1) {Figs. 2, 3; [0098]};
a first common electrode (EL2/EL3) spaced apart from the first pixel electrode (EL1) {Figs. 2, 3; [0098]};
a first light-emitting element (rightmost LD1) connected between the first pixel electrode (EL1) and the first common electrode (EL2/EL3) {Figs. 2, 3; [0099]}; and
a second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) connected in parallel with the first light-emitting element (rightmost LD1) between the first pixel electrode (EL1) and the first common electrode (EL2/EL3) {Figs. 2, 3; [0099]}.
Lee does not teach a second light-emitting element having a threshold voltage that is lower than a threshold voltage of the first light-emitting element.
In an analogous art, Park teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0063] a second light-emitting element (Sub2) having a threshold voltage that is lower than a threshold voltage of a first light-emitting element (Sub1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-emitting elements, different threshold voltages) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, but Lee does not teach wherein a size of the first light-emitting element is different from a size of the second light-emitting element.
Park teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0064] a size of a first light-emitting element (Sub1) is different from a size of a second light-emitting element (Sub2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park based on the further teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-emitting elements, sizes) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 2, but Lee does not teach wherein the size of the first light-emitting element is larger than the size of the second light-emitting element.
Park teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0064] a size of a first light-emitting element (Sub1) is larger than the size of a second light-emitting element (Sub2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park based on the further teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-emitting elements, sizes) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, and Lee further teaches
wherein the first pixel electrode (EL1) and the first common electrode (EL2) do not overlap each other in a thickness direction (DR3) of the first light-emitting element (rightmost LD1) and the second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) {Fig. 3; [0110]},
wherein a portion of the first light-emitting element (rightmost LD1) and a portion of the second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) are above the first pixel electrode (EL1) {Fig. 3; [0118]; A first end (or one end) of the first light emitting element LD1 may face the first electrode EL1, and a second end (or the other end) of the first light emitting element LD1 may face the second electrode EL2}, and
wherein another portion of the first light-emitting element (rightmost LD1) and another portion of the second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) are above the first common electrode (EL2) {Fig. 3; [0118]; A first end (or one end) of the first light emitting element LD1 may face the first electrode EL1, and a second end (or the other end) of the first light emitting element LD1 may face the second electrode EL2}.
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, and Lee further teaches wherein the first pixel electrode (EL1) comprises a first sub-pixel electrode (portion of EL1 directly connected to rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2) and a second sub-pixel electrode (portion of EL1 directly connected to 2nd rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2) separated from each other and electrically connected to each other {Figs. 2, 3; [0110]}.
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 7, and Lee further teaches wherein the first light-emitting element (rightmost LD1) and the second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) are above the first sub-pixel electrode (portion of EL1 directly connected to rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2) and the second sub-pixel electrode (portion of EL1 directly connected to 2nd rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2), respectively {Fig. 3 [0110, 0118]}.
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 7, and Lee further teaches wherein the first common electrode (EL2) comprises a first sub-common electrode (portion of EL2 directly connected to rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2) and a second sub-common electrode (portion of EL2 directly connected to 2nd rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2) separated from each other and electrically connected to each other {Fig. 3; [0110]}.
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 9, and Lee further teaches
wherein the first light-emitting element (rightmost LD1) comprises a first portion above the first sub-pixel electrode (portion of EL1 directly connected to rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2), and a second portion extending from the first portion and above the first sub-common electrode (portion of EL2 directly connected to rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2) {Fig. 3; [0110, 0118]}, and
wherein the second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) comprises a first portion above the second sub-pixel electrode (portion of EL1 directly connected to 2nd rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2), and a second portion extending from the first portion and above the second sub-common electrode (portion of EL2 directly connected to 2nd rightmost LD1 of Fig. 2) {Fig. 3; [0110, 0118]}.
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, and Lee further teaches wherein the first pixel (PXL1) further comprises a third light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD2) connected in series with the second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) between the first pixel electrode (EL1) and the first common electrode (EL3) {Figs. 2, 3}.
Lee does not teach a threshold voltage of the third light-emitting element is lower than the threshold voltage of the first light-emitting element.
Park teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0063] a third light-emitting element (Sub3) having a threshold voltage that is lower than a threshold voltage of a first light-emitting element (Sub1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park based on the further teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-emitting elements, different threshold voltages) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 14, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 13, and Lee further teaches wherein the threshold voltage of the third light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD2) is equal to the threshold voltage of the second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) {[0133]; the threshold voltage of the light emitting element LD; because every LD1 and LD2 of Fig. 2 is the LD and the LD has a single threshold voltage, it follows that every LD1 and LD2 has the same threshold voltage}.
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches in Figs. 1-3 a pixel comprising:
a pixel electrode (EL1) {Figs. 2, 3; [0098]};
a common electrode (EL2/EL3) spaced apart from the pixel electrode (EL1) {Figs. 2, 3; [0098]};
a first light-emitting element (rightmost LD1) connected between the pixel electrode (EL1) and the common electrode (EL2/EL3) {Figs. 2, 3; [0099]}; and
a second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) connected in parallel with the first light-emitting element (rightmost LD1) between the pixel electrode (EL1) and the common electrode (EL2/EL3 {Figs. 2, 3; [0099]}).
Lee does not teach a second light-emitting element having a threshold voltage that is lower than a threshold voltage of the first light-emitting element.
Park teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0063] a second light-emitting element (Sub2) having a threshold voltage that is lower than a threshold voltage of a first light-emitting element (Sub1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-emitting elements, different threshold voltages) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 20, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 19, and Lee further teaches further comprising a third light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD2) connected in series with the second light-emitting element (2nd rightmost LD1) between the pixel electrode (EL1) and the common electrode (EL3) {Figs. 2, 3}.
Lee does not teach a threshold voltage of the third light-emitting element is lower than the threshold voltage of the first light-emitting element.
Park teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0063] a third light-emitting element (Sub3) having a threshold voltage that is lower than a threshold voltage of a first light-emitting element (Sub1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park based on the further teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-emitting elements, different threshold voltages) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20230112256A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, but Lee does not teach wherein a luminous efficiency of the first light-emitting element is higher than a luminous efficiency of the second light-emitting element.
Lee ‘256 teaches in Fig. 16A and paragraph [0174] a luminous efficiency of a first light-emitting element (LE1) is higher than a luminous efficiency of a second light-emitting element (LE2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park based on the teachings of Lee ‘256, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-emitting elements, luminous efficiencies) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lee ‘256) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 6, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eom et al. (US20230238499A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, but Lee does not necessarily teach wherein the first pixel electrode and the first common electrode do not overlap each other in a thickness direction of the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element,
wherein the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element are above the first pixel electrode, and
wherein the first common electrode is above the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element.
In an analogous art, Eom teaches in Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7 and paragraphs [0119, 0125, 0126] a first pixel electrode (AND) and a first common electrode (COM, ELT2) do not overlap each other in a thickness direction (DR3) of a first light-emitting element (e.g., LD:LD1) and a second light-emitting element (e.g., LD:LD2), wherein the first light-emitting element (e.g., LD:LD1) and the second light-emitting element (e.g., LD:LD2) are above the first pixel electrode (AND), and wherein the first common electrode (COM, ELT2) is above the first light-emitting element (e.g., LD:LD1) and the second light-emitting element (e.g., LD:LD2) {the orientation of Eom’s Fig. 7 may be rotated to meet the limitation whereby the first common electrode is above the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element, while the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element remain above the first pixel electrode}.
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, but Lee does not teach wherein the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element comprise:
a first contact electrode above the first pixel electrode;
a first semiconductor layer above the first contact electrode;
a light-emitting layer above the first semiconductor layer; and
a second semiconductor layer above the light-emitting layer, and electrically connected to the first common electrode.
Eom teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [0119] a light-emitting element (LD) comprises a first contact electrode (ELT1) above a first pixel electrode (AND); a first semiconductor layer (11) above the first contact electrode (ELT1); a light-emitting layer (12) above the first semiconductor layer (11); and a second semiconductor layer (13) above the light-emitting layer (12), and electrically connected to a common electrode (COM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park based on the teachings of Eom, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by EOM) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified by Park and Eom teaches the display device of claim 11, but Lee does not teach wherein the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element further comprise a second contact electrode between the second semiconductor layer and the first common electrode.
Eom teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [0119] a light-emitting element (LD) comprises a second contact electrode (ELT2) between a second semiconductor layer (13) and a common electrode (COM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park and Eom based on the further teachings of Eom, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by EOM) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US20190204670A1).
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified by Park teaches the display device of claim 1, but Lee does not teach further comprising a second pixel in the display area and comprising more light-emitting elements than the first pixel,
wherein two of the light-emitting elements of the second pixel are connected in parallel and have different respective threshold voltages.
In an analogous art, Park ‘670 teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0050-0053] a second pixel (PX1) in a display area (area of CFL) and comprising more light-emitting elements (YLD1, BLD1) than a first pixel (PX2), wherein two of the light-emitting elements (YLD1, BLD1) of the second pixel (PX1) are connected in parallel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park based on the teachings of Park ‘670, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so that a final image viewed by a user may have natural colors. Park ‘670 [0058]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., pixels, light-emitting elements) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park ‘670) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Lee as modified by Park ‘670 does not teach two of the light-emitting elements of the second pixel have different respective threshold voltages.
Park teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0063] two light-emitting elements (Sub1, Sub2) of a pixel have different respective threshold voltages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park and Park ‘670 based on the further teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-emitting elements, different threshold voltages) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 18, Lee as modified by Park and Park ‘670 teaches the display device of claim 17, but Lee does not teach wherein the first pixel (PX2) and a second pixel (PX1) are configured to emit light of different respective colors.
Park ‘670 teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0050-0053] a first pixel and the second pixel are configured to emit light of different respective colors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s display device as modified by Park and Park ‘670 based on the further teachings of Park ‘670, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so that a final image viewed by a user may have natural colors. Park ‘670 [0058]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., pixels, different colors) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park ‘670) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 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:
Regarding dependent claim 15, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the recited subject matter of “a fourth light-emitting element connected in series with the first light-emitting element between the first pixel electrode and the first common electrode, and wherein a threshold voltage of the fourth light-emitting element is higher than the threshold voltage of the second light-emitting element” in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Claims 16 is allowable due to its dependence from intermediate claim 15.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US20220262995A1) teaches a display substrate includes a first base, a plurality of light-emitting devices disposed on a side of the first base, a light dimming layer located in gaps between the plurality of light-emitting devices and located on surfaces of the plurality of light-emitting devices away from the first base, and a second base covering the light dimming layer. The plurality of light-emitting devices are spaced apart from each other. At least one light-emitting device is surrounded by the light dimming layer, a material of a portion, located in the gaps between the plurality of light-emitting devices, of the light dimming layer includes a light absorbing material, and the light dimming layer is configured to absorb part of light entering the light dimming layer. But Li does not teach the above-identified subject matter of claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights