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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 in regards to claims 16-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per claim 16, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose wherein “in response to supplying a first data voltage having a first voltage level to the at least one sub-pixel, emit light via the first light emitting element based on the first data voltage while the second light emitting element remains off, and in response to supplying a second data voltage having a second voltage level higher than the first voltage level to the at least one sub-pixel, emit light via both of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element based on the first data voltage”.
The Office respectfully disagrees and submits that of the previously cited Jinta discloses wherein in response to supplying the first data voltage having a first voltage level to the at least one sub-pixel, emit light via the first light emitting element based on the first data voltage while the second light emitting element remains off (see Figs. 10A-10B, paragraph 118, notice that during operation, a plurality of data voltages are output from the data driver into the pixel to achieve a desired luminance, said voltages are proportional to the desired luminance, transistor Q3 controls the timing of emissions for OLED 5a).
Furthermore, the previously cited Lee discloses wherein in response to supplying a second data voltage having a second voltage level higher than a first voltage level to the at least one sub-pixel, emit light via both of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element based on the second data voltage (Fig. 11, paragraphs 55-56, during operation, a plurality of data voltages are output from the data driver into the pixel to achieve a desired luminance, said voltages are proportional to the desired luminance).
Furthermore, although Lee and Jinta do not explicitly teach wherein in response to supplying the second data voltage, to emit light based on the first data voltage, the previously cited Pyun et al. teach wherein in response to supplying the second data voltage, to emit light based on the first data voltage (paragraph 70, “The second initialization voltage VINT2 may be lower than the lowest data voltage of the display device. For example, the data voltage VDAT may have a data voltage range from about 1 V corresponding to a 0-gray level to about 11 V corresponding to a 255-gray level, and the second initialization voltage VINT2 may be about −5 V”, The Office respectfully submits that both VINT and VDAT are being construed as the claimed data voltages, notice that a second data voltage (VDAT) between 1V and 11V will always be higher than a first data voltage (VINT) of -5V).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0014815 to Lee; in view of US 2008/0308819 to Louwsma et al.; in view of US 2021/0097929 to Li.
As per claim 1, Lee teaches a pixel circuit comprising:
a driving element (Fig. 11, T1) including a first electrode connected to a first power line (Fig. 11, ELVDD), a gate electrode (Fig. 11, N1) connected to a first node, and a second electrode connected to a second node (Fig. 11, N2);
a switch element (Fig, 11, T2) configured to supply a data voltage to the first node in response to a gate signal;
a capacitor (Fig. 11, Cst) connected between the first node and the second node; and
a first light-emitting element and a second light-emitting element connected in parallel between the second node and a second power line (Fig. 13), wherein a first threshold voltage of the first light-emitting element is different than a second threshold voltage of the second light-emitting element (paragraph 5, “as the display device increases in size, a process deviation may occur according to a position of the pixels. Therefore, even transistors performing the same function in each of the pixels may have different characteristics such as mobility and a threshold voltage. Similarly, threshold voltages of the light emitting diodes of each of the pixels may be different from each other.”).
Lee does not teach the first and second light-emitting element having a stack structure or an organic light- emitting layer in the first light-emitting element having different composition materials than an organic light-emitting layer in the second light-emitting element.
Louwsma et al. teach the first and second light-emitting element having a stack structure (Fig. 2, paragraph 32, “each color layer OC1, OC2, OC3 may comprise phosphors to transform the radiation emitted by the single type semiconductor stack ST to either red, green or blue”, notice that Louwsma teaches variations in phosphor/emissive stack structure to achieve different emission characteristics. It is well understood in LED device physics that modifying the emissive stack alters charge transport and recombination dynamics, which in turn affects electrical characteristics including threshold voltage) or an organic light- emitting layer in the first light-emitting element having different composition materials than an organic light-emitting layer in the second light-emitting element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lee, so that the first and second light-emitting element have a stack structure or an organic light- emitting layer in the first light-emitting element having different composition materials than an organic light-emitting layer in the second light-emitting element, such as taught by Louwsma et al., for the purpose of defining desired emission properties.
Lee and Louwsma et al. do not teach the first light-emitting element having a different stack structure than the second light-emitting element.
Li suggests the first light-emitting element having a different stack structure than the second light-emitting element (Figs. 2 and 3, paragraph 61, describe 2 light emitting sub-elements (112A/112B) of the same color within a pixel each implemented to be deliberately different so as to have slightly different emission wavelengths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lee and Louwsma et al., so that the first light-emitting element has a different stack structure than the second light-emitting element, such as suggested by Li, for the purpose of maintaining display quality under different grayscales.
Lee, Louwsma and Li et al. suggest wherein the first and second threshold voltages are different based on the first light-emitting element having a different stack structure than the second light-emitting element (Lousma, Fig. 2, paragraph 32, “each color layer OC1, OC2, OC3 may comprise phosphors to transform the radiation emitted by the single type semiconductor stack ST to either red, green or blue”, notice that Louwsma suggests wherein a different emission wavelength is achieved by utilizing a different phosphor layer; Li, Figs. 2 and 3, paragraph 61, describe 2 light emitting sub-elements (112A/112B) of the same color within a pixel each implemented to be deliberately different so as to have slightly different emission wavelengths. Notice that it is well understood in LED device physics that modifying the emissive stack alters charge transport and recombination dynamics, which in turn affects, at least indirectly, electrical characteristics including threshold voltages).
As per claim 2, Lee, Louwsma and Li et al. teach the pixel circuit of claim 1, wherein the first threshold voltage of the first light-emitting element is smaller than the second threshold voltage of the second light-emitting element (Lee, paragraph 5), and the second light-emitting element is configured to selectively emit light based on a voltage level of the data voltage (Lee, paragraph 70).
As per claim 4, Lee, Louwsma and Li et al. teach the pixel circuit of claim 1, wherein the switch element (Lee, Fig. 11, T2) includes: a gate electrode connected to a gate line (Lee, Fig. 11, S1i) configured to receive the gate signal, a first electrode connected to a data line (Lee, Fig. 11, Dj) configured to receive the data, and a second electrode connected to the first node (Lee, Fig. 11, N1).
As per claim 5, Lee, Louwsma and Li et al. teach the pixel circuit of claim 1, where the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element are configured to emit a same color of light (Lee, Fig. 11, paragraph 55, the OLEDS correspond to a same pixel and based on the disclosed structure each pixel is configured to emit a certain light color).
As per claim 8, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 1 and it is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Lee further teaches a display device comprising a display panel including a plurality of data lines, a plurality of gate lines intersecting the plurality of data lines (Lee, Figs. 1 and 5).
As per claim 9, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 2 and it is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 11, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 4 and it is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 6, 7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0014815 to Lee; in view US 2023/0217710 to Jinta; in view of US 2017/0345376 to Tani et al.
As per claim 6, Lee teaches a pixel circuit comprising:
a driving element (Fig. 11, T1) including a first electrode connected to a first power line, a gate electrode connected to a first node, and a second electrode connected to a second node;
a first switch element (Fig. 11, T2) configured to supply a data voltage to the first node in response to a gate signal;
a capacitor (Fig. 11, Cst) connected between the first node and the second node;
a first light-emitting element (Fig. 11, LSU) connected between the second node and a second power line.
Lee does not necessarily teach a second light-emitting element connected in parallel and a second switch element configured to selectively connect the second node to the second light-emitting element in response to a control signal.
Jinta teaches a second light-emitting element connected in parallel (Fig. 10A, 5a) and a second switch element (Fig. 10A, Q3) configured to selectively connect the second node to the second light-emitting element in response to a control signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lee by including a second light-emitting element connected in parallel and a second switch element configured to selectively connect the second node to the second light-emitting element in response to a control signal, such as taught by Jinta for the purpose of improving brightness control.
Lee and Jinta do not teach wherein the control signal is generated based on an average luminance of an image to be displayed on a display panel including the pixel circuit.
Tani et al. suggest wherein the control signal is generated based on an average luminance of an image to be displayed on a display panel including the pixel circuit (Fig. 15, paragraph 89, “compares the calculated APL with a preset reference value, and further may control an interval between a first sensing pulse and a second sensing pulse of a sensing signal to control an emission duty of an OLED based on the comparison result”, in other words, a duty cycle is at least indirectly controlled based on APL, notice that the emission duty of the second light emitting element of Lee and Jinta is controlled, at least in part, by the control signal (see Jinta, Figs. 10A-10B, RST)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lee and Jinta, so that wherein the control signal is generated based on an average luminance of an image to be displayed on a display panel including the pixel circuit, such as taught by Tani et al., for the purpose of ensuring display quality at different grayscale levels.
As per claim 7, Lee, Jinta and Tani et al. teach the pixel circuit of claim 6, wherein the first switch element (Lee, Fig. 11, T2) includes a gate electrode connected to a gate line configured to receive the gate signal, a first electrode connected to a data line configured to receive the data voltage, and a second electrode connected to the first node, and wherein the second switch element (Jinta, Fig. 10A, 5a) includes a gate electrode configured to receive the control signal, a first electrode connected to the second node, and a second electrode connected to an anode of the second light-emitting element.
As per claim 12, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 6 and it is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Furthermore, Lee and Jinta also teach a display device comprising: a display panel including a plurality of data lines, a plurality of gate lines intersecting the plurality of data lines (Lee, Figs. 1 and 11), a data driver (Lee, Fig. 1, 12) configured to apply a data voltage to the plurality of data lines; a gate driver (Lee, Fig. 1, 13) configured to apply a gate signal to the plurality of gate lines; and a timing controller (Lee, Fig. 1, 11) configured to control the data driver and the gate driver.
As per claim 13, Jinta and Tani et al. teach the display device of claim 12, wherein the timing controller is configured to apply the control signal to the plurality pixel circuits in common (Jinta, paragraph 118, pixels 5a are controlled in common).
As per claim 14, Jinta and Tani et al. teach the display device of claim 13, wherein the timing controller is configured to apply the control signal to the pixel circuits based on an average luminance of an entire area in which an image is displayed or an average luminance of each of a plurality of areas in which the image is displayed (Jinta, paragraph 121, “the average luminance of the display panel 2 can also be adjusted by adjusting … the operation period of the sensor in one frame period”; paragraph 118, “during operation of the sensor, the switch transistor Q3 is turned off to stop light emission of the OLED 5a”, in other words, a desired luminance determines the operation of the sensor, and the operation of the control signal depends on the operation of said sensor, therefore, the control signal depends, at least in part, on a (desired) average luminance).
As per claim 15, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 7 and it is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0014815 to Lee; in view US 2023/0217710 to Jinta; further in view of US 2021/0390906 to Pyun et al.
As per claim 16, Lee teaches a display device comprising: a display panel including a plurality of data lines, a plurality of gate lines, and at least one sub-pixel including a first light emitting element and a second light emitting element (Lee, Figs. 1, 5 and 13); and a controller configured to:
in response to supplying a second data voltage having a second voltage level higher than a first voltage level to the at least one sub-pixel, emit light via both of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element based on the second data voltage (Fig. 11, paragraphs 55-56, during operation, a plurality of data voltages are output from the data driver into the pixel to achieve a desired luminance, said voltages are proportional to the desired luminance).
Lee does not necessarily teach in response to supplying the first data voltage having a first voltage level to the at least one sub-pixel, emit light via the first light emitting element based on the first data voltage while the second light emitting element remains off.
Jinta teaches in response to supplying the first data voltage having a first voltage level to the at least one sub-pixel, emit light via the first light emitting element based on the first data voltage while the second light emitting element remains off (Fig. 10A, paragraph 118, during operation, a plurality of data voltages are output from the data driver into the pixel to achieve a desired luminance, said voltages are proportional to the desired luminance, transistor Q3 controls the timing of emissions for OLED 5a).
Lee and Jinta do not explicitly teach wherein in response to supplying the second data voltage, to emit light based on the first data voltage.
Pyun et al. teach wherein in response to supplying the second data voltage, to emit light based on the first data voltage (paragraph 70, “The second initialization voltage VINT2 may be lower than the lowest data voltage of the display device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lee and Jinta, so that in response to supplying the second data voltage, to emit light based on the first data voltage, such as taught by Pyun et al., for the purpose of improving display quality.
As per claim 17, Lee, Jinta and Pyun et al. teach the display device of claim 16, wherein the first light emitting element and a second light emitting element included in the at least one sub-pixel are configured to emit a same color of light (Fig. 11, paragraph 55, the OLEDS correspond to a same pixel and based on the disclosed structure each pixel is configured to emit a certain light color).
As per claim 18, Lee, Jinta and Pyun et al. teach the display device of claim 16, wherein the at least one sub-pixel includes a driving transistor, and wherein the first light emitting element and a second light emitting element are connected in parallel to the driving transistor (Lee, Fig. 11; Jinta, Fig. 10A).
As per claim 19, Lee, Jinta and Pyun et al. teach the display device of claim 18, wherein the at least one sub-pixel further includes a switch connected between the first light emitting element and a second light emitting element, and wherein the switch is configured to electrically isolate or electrically connect the second light emitting element and the driving transistor (Jinta, Fig. 10A).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0014815 to Lee; in view US 2023/0217710 to Jinta; further in view of US 2021/0390906 to Pyun et al; in view US 2020/0403059 to Oh et al.
As per claim 20, Lee, Jinta and Pyun et al. teach the display device of claim 16, wherein the first light emitting element includes a first characteristic, and wherein the second light emitting element includes a second characteristic different than the first characteristic (Lee, paragraph 5).
Lee, Jinta and Pyun et al.do not explicitly teach wherein the characteristic comprises stack structures.
Oh et al. teach wherein the characteristic comprises stack structures (paragraph 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lee, so that the characteristic comprises stack structures, such as taught by Oh et al., for the purpose of manufacturing an organic light emitting diode.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, from 8 am - 5 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571) 272-7603. 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.
/JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622