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 .
Priorities
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0042323, filed on 03/28/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 11/05/2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the PTO-1449 is included in this correspondence.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US Pub. 2016/0365051 A1) in view of Son et al. (US Pub. 2017/0309646 A1).
Regarding claim 1; Jung teaches a display device (a display apparatus 100, Figs. 1A-1B and 2) comprising:
a display panel (a display panel 110) including a plurality of pixels (a plurality of pixels, Fig.1B);
a driving integrated circuit (Fig.2, a driving circuit comprises a source driver IC 120, a gate driver IC 1230, a controller 140, and a timing controller 150) which generates and outputs a first gate driver control signal to be supplied to the display panel (Fig.2, para. [0072-0073]), and feeds back, as a first feedback signal (a feedback signal Fb, Fig.2), the first gate driver control signal provided to the display panel (Fig.2, para. [0065], the controller 140 receives a feedback signal Fb on a gate driving voltage applied to the pixels); and
wherein the driving integrated circuit compares a waveform of the first gate driver control signal with a waveform of the first feedback signal (para. [0065 and 0094], the controller 140 receives the feedback signal Fb on a gate driving voltage applied to at least one pixel among a plurality of pixels and detects distortion of the gate driving voltage applied to the pixels based on the feedback signal Fb to compensate for the distortion of the gate driving voltage. In particular, the controller 140 may quantify an amount of distortion of the gate driving voltage applied to the pixel by comparison with an undistorted normal gate driving voltage and generate a compensation gate driving to compensate the amount of distortion of the voltage signal amplitude, for example, by adding a comparison difference value to the undistorted voltage signal value).
Jung does not teach a first conductive ball electrically connecting the driving integrated circuit and the display panel to each other.
Son teaches a first conductive ball electrically connecting the driving integrated circuit and the display panel to each other (Figs.1-4 and 6-7, para. [0133], Son discloses a display panel comprising adhesive members AF-1 and AF-2. The adhesive members are used to connect a display panel DP with a driving circuit MB. The adhesive member may be formed of conductive adhesive film including conductive metal balls).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jung to include the teaching of Son of providing adhesive members including conductive balls for connecting a display panel with a driving circuit. The motivation would have been in order to improve the electrical connection property and to improve adhesive force (Son, para. [0195-0196]).
Regarding claim 11; Jung in view of Son teaches a method of driving a display device including a display panel and a first conductive ball electrically connected to the display panel, the method comprising: generating and outputting a first gate driver control signal to be supplied to the display panel; feeding back the first gate driver control signal as a first feedback signal from the display panel; and comparing a waveform of the first gate driver control signal with a waveform of the first feedback signal (similar to the analysis of claim 1 above).
Claims 2-3, 5, 12-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US Pub. 2016/0365051 A1) in view of Son et al. (US Pub. 2017/0309646 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US Pub. 2016/0163279 A1).
Regarding claim 2; Jung in view of Son teaches the display device of claim 1 as discussed above. Jung further teaches the display panel includes: a first gate driver (the gate driver IC 130, Figs. 1A-1B) which supplies gate signals to the plurality of pixels (para. [0072-0073]); and transfers the first gate driver control signal as the first feedback signal to the driving integrated circuit (Fig.2, para. [0065], the feedback signal Fb is transferred from the display panel to the controller 140).
Jung does not teach a first pad which receives the first gate driver control signal from the driving integrated circuit through the first conductive ball; and a first test pad which detects the first gate driver control signal passing through the first pad.
Son teaches a first pad which receives the first gate driver control signal from the driving integrated circuit through the first conductive ball (see the analysis of claim 1, Son discloses adhesive members (e.g., AF-1 and AF-2) including conductive balls for connecting the display panel DP with the driving circuit MB. For example, Fig.4, para. [0105], a gate pad PP-GL receives a gate signal from the driving circuit MB). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1.
Hong teaches a first test pad which detects the first gate driver control signal (Fig.1, para. [0052], a second test pad portion 520 is connected to a gate line to detect a distortion of a gate signal).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jung in view of Son to include the teaching of Hong of providing a second pad portion connected to a gate line to detect a distortion of a gate signal. Accordingly, a combination of Jung, Son, and Hong would render a second test pad portion for detecting a gate signal outputted from a gate line. Therefore, the combination of Jung, Son, and Hong further teaches “a first test pad which detects the first gate driver control signal passing through the first pad”. The motivation would have been in order to measure an output signal of the driving circuit (Hong, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 3; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the display device of claim 2 as discussed above.
Jung further teaches the driving integrated circuit generates and outputs a second gate driver control signal, and feeds back, as a second feedback signal, the second gate driver control signal provided to the display panel, and wherein the driving integrated circuit compares a waveform of the second gate driver control signal with a waveform of the second feedback signal (para. [0012, 0021, 0065-0066, and 0094], Jung discloses that the controller receives feedback signals on a gate driving voltage applied to at least one gate line. Therefore, the controller may receive a second feedback signal from a second gate line for detecting a distortion of a gate signal applied to the second gate line).
Jung does not teach a second conductive ball electrically connecting the driving integrated circuit and the display panel to each other.
Son teaches a second conductive ball electrically connecting the driving integrated circuit and the display panel to each other (similar to the analysis of claim 1 above).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the display device of claim 3 as discussed above. Jung further teaches the first gate driver control signal and the second gate driver control signal are substantially identical to each other (It is understood that the first gate signal applied to the first gate line and the second gate signal applied to the second gate line would be identical).
Regarding claim 12; Jung in view of Son teaches the method of claim 11 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the method of claim 12 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the method of claim 13 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 5.
Regarding claim 16; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the method of claim 13 as discussed above. Jung further teaches the first gate driver control signal is modified based on a result obtained by comparing the waveform of the first gate driver control signal with the waveform of the first feedback signal (para. [0094], the controller 140 may generate a compensation gate driving to compensate the amount of distortion of the voltage signal amplitude, for example, by adding a comparison difference value to the undistorted voltage signal value. The generated compensation gate driving voltage may be applied to a gate line at a subsequent frame to reduce a difference in the charging voltages in the frame).
Regarding claim 17; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Jung further teaches the modified first gate driver control signal is applied to the gate driver IC (Jung, para. [0094]).
Jung does not teach the modified first gate driver control signal is applied to the first conductive ball.
Son teaches a first conductive ball electrically connecting the driving integrated circuit and the display panel to each other (see the analysis of claim 2). Accordingly, the combination of Jung, Son, and Hong would teach the modified first gate driver control signal is applied to the first conductive ball. The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 18; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Jung further teaches a magnitude of an amplitude of the modified first gate driver control signal is smaller than a magnitude of an amplitude of the first gate driver control signal (Fig.4, para. [0093], the signal corresponding to the compensation gate driving voltage applied to each frame may have a different waveform with sections having different amplitude or amplitudes, which may be determined by a gate driving voltage which is fed back from a previous frame. In other words, an amplitude of first compensated gate signal may be smaller than an amplitude of second compensated gate signal).
Regarding claim 19; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Jung further teaches the first gate driver control signal is modified when the waveform of the first gate driver control signal and the waveform of the first feedback signal are different from each other in at least a partial period (para. [0012 and 0094], the controller determines an amount of distortion by comparing the feedback signal with an undistorted normal gate driving voltage to generate compensation gate driving signal).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US Pub. 2016/0365051 A1) in view of Son et al. (US Pub. 2017/0309646 A1) and Hong et al. (US Pub. 2016/0163279 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Woo et al. (US Pub. 2025/0273103 A1).
Regarding claim 4; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the display device of claim 3 as discussed above. Jung further teaches transfers the second gate driver control signal as the second feedback signal to the driving integrated circuit (para. [0012, 0021, 0065-0066, and 0094], Jung discloses that the controller receives feedback signals on a gate driving voltage applied to at least one gate line. Therefore, the controller may receive a second feedback signal from a second gate line for detecting a distortion of a gate signal applied to the second gate line. Accordingly, the controller would receive the second feedback signal Fb corresponding to the second gate signal applied to the second gate line).
Jung in view of Son and Hong does not teach a second gate driver which is spaced apart from the first gate driver in a first direction, and supplies the gate signals to the plurality of pixels; a fourth pad which receives the second gate driver control signal from the driving integrated circuit through the second conductive ball; and a second test pad which detects the second gate driver control signal passing through the fourth pad.
Son teaches a pad which receives the gate driver control signal from the driving integrated circuit through the second conductive ball (see the analysis of claim 2 above). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Hong teaches a second test pad which detects the second gate driver control signal (similar to the analysis of claim 2 above, Fig.1, para. [0052], a second test pad portion 520 is connected to a gate line to detect a distortion of a gate signal).
Woo teaches a second gate driver (a second gate driving circuit 135, Fig.1) which is spaced apart from the first gate driver (first gate driving circuit 130, Fig.1) in a first direction (Fig.1, in a horizontal direction), and supplies the gate signals to the plurality of pixels (para. [0045]); a fourth pad (gate pads Pg, Fig.7) which receives the second gate driver control signal from the driving integrated circuit (Fig.1, para. [0043], the first and second gate driving circuits 130 and 135 receive control signals from a timing controlling unit 120).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2. Accordingly, the combination of Jung, Son, Woo, and Hong further teaches “a second test pad which detects the second gate driver control signal passing through the fourth pad”.
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jung in view of Son and Hong to include the teaching of Woo of providing a second gate driving circuit. The motivation would have been in order to improve the driving capability.
Regarding claim 14; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the method of claim 13 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 4.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US Pub. 2016/0365051 A1) in view of Son et al. (US Pub. 2017/0309646 A1) and Hong et al. (US Pub. 2016/0163279 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2020/0402433 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kim’433”).
Regarding claim 6; Jung in view of Son and Hong teaches the display device of claim 3 as discussed above. Jung further teaches the driving integrated circuit includes: a timing controller (the timing controller 150, Fig.2) which generates the first gate driver control signal (para. [0073 and 0077], the gate driver IC 130 receives a gate-on voltage (Von) and a gate-off voltage (Voff) and outputs a gate driving voltage having the gate-on voltage (Von) sequentially in response to the gate control signal (STV, CPV, and OE) transmitted from the timing controller 150); and a waveform comparator which compares the waveform of the first gate driver control signal with the waveform of the first feedback signal, and compares the waveform of the second gate driver control signal with the waveform of the second feedback signal (para. [0094], the controller 140 is configured to compare the feedback signal with an undistorted normal gate driving voltage to quantify an amount of distortion).
Jung in view of Son and Hong does not teach input pads including a 1bth input pad which receives the first feedback signal transferred from the first test pad.
Kim’433 teaches input pads including a 1bth input pad which receives the first feedback signal (Fig.6, para. [0076, 0079, 0082, and 0096-0100], main contact pads CP1-CP4 are provided on a main circuit board MCB2 including a main controller MC. The input pads CP1-CP2 connect with test lines TL21-TL24 to receive feedback signals from a display panel).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jung in view of Son and Hong to include the teaching of Kim’433 of providing a plurality of contact pads on a main circuit board. The motivation would have been in order to provide connection with a display panel to receive feedback signal.
Regarding claim 7; Jung in view of Son, Hong, and Kim’433 teaches the display device of claim 6 as discussed above. Jung further teaches the driving integrated circuit further includes a control signal generator which receives a waveform comparison result transferred from the waveform comparator, and wherein the control signal generator modifies the first gate driver control signal, based on the waveform comparison result (para. [0094], the controller 140 may generate a compensation gate driving to compensate the amount of distortion of the voltage signal amplitude, for example, by adding a comparison difference value to the undistorted voltage signal value. The generated compensation gate driving voltage may be applied to a gate line at a subsequent frame to reduce a difference in the charging voltages in the frame).
Regarding claim 9; Jung in view of Son, Hong, and Kim’433 teaches the display device of claim 7 as discussed above. Jung further teaches a magnitude of an amplitude of a modified first gate driver control signal is smaller than a magnitude of an amplitude of the first gate driver control signal (Fig.4, para. [0093], the signal corresponding to the compensation gate driving voltage applied to each frame may have a different waveform with sections having different amplitude or amplitudes, which may be determined by a gate driving voltage which is fed back from a previous frame. In other words, an amplitude of first compensated gate signal may be smaller than an amplitude of second compensated gate signal).
Regarding claim 10; Jung in view of Son, Hong, and Kim’433 teaches the display device of claim 7 as discussed above. Jung further teaches the control signal generator modifies the first gate driver control signal when the waveform of the first gate driver control signal and the waveform of the first feedback signal are different from each other in at least a partial period (para. [0012 and 0094], the controller determines an amount of distortion by comparing the feedback signal with an undistorted normal gate driving voltage to generate compensation gate driving signal).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US Pub. 2016/0365051 A1) in view of Son et al. (US Pub. 2017/0309646 A1), Hong et al. (US Pub. 2016/0163279 A1), and Kim et al. (US Pub. 2020/0402433 A1, referred to as “Kim’433”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2007/0167036 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kim’036”).
Regarding claim 8; Jung in view of Son, Hong, and Kim’433 teaches the display device of claim 7 as discussed above. Jung further teaches the driving integrated circuit applies a modified first gate driver control signal output from the control signal generator to the gate driver IC (Jung, para. [0094]).
Jung does not teach the driving integrated circuit further includes an output pad unit which connects the control signal generator to the first conductive ball, and wherein the output pad unit applies a modified first gate driver control signal output from the control signal generator to the first conductive ball.
Son teaches a first conductive ball electrically connecting the driving integrated circuit and the display panel to each other (see the analysis of claim 2). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Kim’036 teaches the driving integrated circuit further includes an output pad unit which connects the control signal generator to the first conductive ball (Fig.4, para. [0071, 0082], a gate driving chip 168 comprises an output pad 168a for outputting gate signals to a gate line 116 through an anisotropic conductive film 10 including conductive particles 12).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of Jung in view of Son, Hong, and Kim’433 to include the teaching of Kim’036 of providing output pads for transmitting gate signals to gate lines through a conductive film including conductive particles. The motivation would have been in order to provide electrical connections between the controller and the display panel for signal transmission.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 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 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.
/NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623