DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2025/0218350) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0301597).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display device comprising: a first subpixel connected to a first data line and a first emission control line, and comprising a first light emitting element (abstract, figs. 1-2, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 58-62, e.g., red sub-pixel; see also ¶ 68-73);
a second subpixel connected to a second data line and a second emission control line and comprising a second light emitting element (figs. 1-2, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 58-62, e.g., green sub-pixel; see also ¶ 68-73);
a third subpixel connected to a third data line and a third emission control line and comprising a third light emitting element (figs. 1-2, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 58-62, e.g., blue sub-pixel; see also ¶ 68-73);
a data driver configured to output data voltages of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel to the first data line, the second data line, and the third data line, respectively (figs. 1-2, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 58-62, data driver 110; see also ¶ 68-73);
and a scan driver configured to output a first emission control signal of a first width, a second emission control signal of a second width, and a third emission control signal of a third width to the first emission control line, the second emission control line, and the third emission control line, respectively (figs. 1-2, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 58-62, gate driver 120; see also ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 99-103, emission pulse widths different for R, G, and B),
wherein the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel are configured to emit light during different times in response to the first emission control signal, the second emission control signal, and the third emission control signal, respectively (figs. 1-2, ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 94, ¶ 99-103, emission pulse widths different for R, G, and B; see also figs. 17-19).
Lee fails to disclose wherein each of the first, second, and third light emitting elements comprises a conductive layer, a first semiconductor layer on the conductive layer, an active layer on the first semiconductor layer, and a second semiconductor layer on the active layer sequentially disposed along a first direction, and wherein a hole is formed to pass through the conductive layer, the first semiconductor layer, and the active layer of each of the first, second, and third light emitting elements and expose the second semiconductor layer.
Park teaches wherein each of the first, second, and third light emitting elements comprises a conductive layer, a first semiconductor layer on the conductive layer, an active layer on the first semiconductor layer, and a second semiconductor layer on the active layer sequentially disposed along a first direction (figs. 1-4, ¶ 44-51, ¶ 58, conductive layer 120, semiconductor layer 113, active layer 112, semiconductor layer 111; see also ¶ 75-83),
and wherein a hole is formed to pass through the conductive layer, the first semiconductor layer, and the active layer of each of the first, second, and third light emitting elements and expose the second semiconductor layer (figs. 1-4, ¶ 44-51, ¶ 58; see also ¶ 75-83, via-holes 115).
Lee and Park are both directed to light emitting diode displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Lee with the device of Park since such a modification provides improved luminance efficiency (Park, ¶ 6).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the data driver is configured to output the data voltages of different magnitudes to the first data line, the second data line, and the third data line, in response to each grey scale of video data (figs. 2-6, ¶ 58-62, ¶ 68-73, dynamic ranges, maximum and minimum voltages may be different for sub-pixels, see also ¶ 83-92).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses wherein the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel comprise respective pixel circuits configured to generate a first driving current, a second driving current, and a third driving current, respectively, in response to the data voltages (figs. 1-2, fig. 6, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 58-62; see also ¶ 68-73, ¶ 83-94).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses wherein the pixel circuit of the first subpixel is configured to supply the first driving current to the first light emitting element during a first emission period corresponding to the first width (figs. 1-2, ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 83-94, ¶ 99-103, e.g., W1; see also figs. 17-19),
wherein the pixel circuit of the second subpixel is configured to supply the second driving current to the second light emitting element during a second emission period corresponding to the second width (figs. 1-2, ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 83-94, ¶ 99-103, e.g., W2; see also figs. 17-19),
and wherein the pixel circuit of the third subpixel is configured to supply the third driving current to the third light emitting element during a third emission period corresponding to the third width (figs. 1-2, ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 83-94, ¶ 99-103, e.g., W3; see also figs. 17-19).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses wherein the first driving current is greater than the second driving current and the third driving current (figs. 4-5, ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 83-94, ¶ 99-103),
and wherein the first emission period is shorter than the second emission period and the third emission period (figs. 1-2, ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 83-94, ¶ 99-103, e.g., W1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the second driving current is smaller than the first driving current and the third driving current (figs. 4-5, ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 83-94, ¶ 99-103),
and wherein the second emission period is longer than the first emission period and the third emission period (figs. 1-2, ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 83-94, ¶ 99-103, e.g., W2).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element are configured to emit light of different colors and have different current efficiency (figs. 4-5, ¶ 68-73, ¶ 83-94).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the first light emitting element is configured to emit first light of red color, wherein the second light emitting element is configured to emit second light of green color, and wherein the third light emitting element is configured to emit third light of blue color (figs. 4-5, ¶ 68-73, ¶ 83-94).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses wherein the first driving current is N times the second driving current, and wherein the first emission period is 1/N times the second emission period (figs. 4-7, ¶ 58-62, ¶ 68-73, dynamic ranges, maximum and minimum voltages may be different for sub-pixels, see also ¶ 83-94; see also ¶ 110, as voltage is increased to drive red LED at max luminous efficiency, emission time is reduced to adjust color coordinates and white balance to ideal target values).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a pixel comprising the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel, wherein the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel are on a same horizontal line in a display area in which the pixel is located (figs. 1-2, ¶ 51-53, pixels divided into sub-pixels; see also figs. 8-9, ¶ 102-107).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses at least one scan line connected to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel (figs. 1-2, figs. 6-7, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 98-100; see also figs. 8-9, ¶ 102-107).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses wherein the scan driver comprises: at least one scan signal output unit configured to output at least one scan signal to at least the one scan line (figs. 1-2, figs. 6-7, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 98-100; see also figs. 8-9, ¶ 102-107);
and an emission control signal output unit configured to output the first emission control signal, the second emission control signal, and the third emission control signal to the first emission control line, the second emission control line, and the third emission control line, respectively (figs. 1-2, figs. 6-7, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 98-107, see figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses a method of driving a display device, the method comprising: driving a first subpixel, a second subpixel, and a third subpixel with driving currents of different magnitudes in response to each grey scale of video data (figs. 2-6, ¶ 58-62, ¶ 68-73, dynamic ranges, maximum and minimum voltages may be different for sub-pixels, see also ¶ 83-92);
and controlling emission periods of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel to be different depending on the driving currents of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel, respectively (figs. 1-2, ¶ 68-73; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 94, ¶ 99-103, emission pulse widths different for R, G, and B; see also figs. 17-19).
The remaining limitations of claim 18 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses wherein the driving the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel with the driving currents of different magnitudes comprises: setting the driving currents of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel as a first driving current, a second driving current, and a third driving current in accordance with efficiency of each of the first, second, and third light emitting elements in the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel (figs. 4-6, ¶ 68-73, ¶ 83-94, dynamic ranges, maximum and minimum voltages may be different for sub-pixels);
and supplying data voltages of magnitudes corresponding to the first driving current, the second driving current, and the third driving current to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel, respectively (figs. 1-2, fig. 6, ¶ 58-62; see also ¶ 68-73, ¶ 83-94).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses wherein the controlling the emission periods of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel to be different comprises: setting the emission periods of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel to be different so that the emission periods decreases as magnitude of the driving current corresponding to each grey scale of the video data increases (figs. 2-6, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 58-62; see also ¶ 68-73, dynamic ranges, maximum and minimum voltages may be different for sub-pixels; see also figs. 7-8, ¶ 99-103, emission pulse widths different for R, G, and B);
and supplying the emission control signals corresponding to each of the emission periods of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel (figs. 1-2, figs. 6-7, ¶ 51-53, ¶ 98-107, see figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Far et al. (US 10,283,037).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Park fails to disclose wherein the first light emitting element is configured to exhibit maximum efficiency at a current range of 100 μA to 300 μA, and wherein the first driving current corresponding to a maximum gray level of the video data is in a range of 100 μA to 300 μA.
Far teaches wherein the first light emitting element is configured to exhibit maximum efficiency at a current range of 100 μA to 300 μA, and wherein the first driving current corresponding to a maximum gray level of the video data is in a range of 100 μA to 300 μA (figs. 1-3, col. 6, l. 49-col. 7, l. 12, red micro LEDs have a maximum efficiency range between 10 and 200 μA).
Lee in view of Park and Far are both directed to light emitting diode displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Lee in view of Park with the LEDs of Far since such a modification improves power consumption (Far, col. 6, l. 49-col. 7, l. 12).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Park fails to disclose wherein the second light emitting element is configured to exhibit maximum efficiency at a current range of 10 μA to 20 μA, and wherein the second driving current corresponding to a maximum gray level of the video data is in a range of 10 μA to 20 μA.
Far teaches wherein the second light emitting element is configured to exhibit maximum efficiency at a current range of 10 μA to 20 μA, and wherein the second driving current corresponding to a maximum gray level of the video data is in a range of 10 μA to 20 μA (figs. 1-3, col. 6, l. 49-col. 7, l. 12, green and blue micro LEDs have a maximum efficiency range between 0.1 and 20 μA).
Lee in view of Park and Far are both directed to light emitting diode displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Lee in view of Park with the LEDs of Far since such a modification improves power consumption (Far, col. 6, l. 49-col. 7, l. 12).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Park fails to disclose wherein the third light emitting element is configured to exhibit maximum efficiency at a current range of 20 μA to 40 μA, and wherein the third driving current corresponding to a maximum gray level of the video data is in a range of 20 μA to 40 μA.
Far teaches wherein the third light emitting element is configured to exhibit maximum efficiency at a current range of 20 μA to 40 μA, and wherein the third driving current corresponding to a maximum gray level of the video data is in a range of 20 μA to 40 μA (figs. 1-3, col. 6, l. 49-col. 7, l. 12, green and blue micro LEDs have a maximum efficiency range between 0.1 and 20 μA).
Lee in view of Park and Far are both directed to light emitting diode displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Lee in view of Park with the LEDs of Far since such a modification improves power consumption (Far, col. 6, l. 49-col. 7, l. 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 18, and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights