DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 6-8, 10, 11 and 14-17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Original claims 1-3 were directed towards method of integration of pixels; specifically focusing on the detecting subpixel to be defective after integration process, and transferring the luminance of defective subpixel to spare ones. However, newly added claim 6-9 and 10-11 recites steps related to manufacturing. Furthermore, claims 14-17 are directed towards method of integration of pixels; specifically focusing on “having an entire pixel array populated by only one type of high-wavelength primary microdevice; having multiple post-integration processes on the entire pixel array; determining at least one coordinate of at least one defected pixel via an inspection system; and wherein a display panel goes through a production step where at least one functional subpixel is covered by a color-conversion material or a color-filter material to form a desired colored-pixel pattern using a fixed mapping or a spatially optimized mapping” which is directed towards the manufacturing steps of the display panel; and not related to driving aspect.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 6-8, 10, 11 and 14-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim comparison table
Claims of application # 19/028913
Claims of U.S. Patent # 11,302,244
1. (Currently Amended) A method of integration for pixels, the method comprising: having a pixel circuit comprising a plurality of pixels integrated on a system substrate of a display system, wherein each of the pixels comprises a subpixel group including a primary subpixel and a spare subpixel group of a same primary color as the primary subpixel; having, each subpixel group configured to emit a separate primary color and each subpixel is a microLED; and detecting a defective subpixel after an integration process, wherein a luminance contribution of the defective subpixel is transferred to the spare subpixel group.
1. A display system on a system substrate comprising: an array of pixels, wherein each pixel comprises a group of sub-pixels and a group of spare sub-pixels arranged in a matrix, each spare sub-pixel for each pixel is configured to emit a separate primary color, and at least one group of sub-pixels comprises at least one defective sub-pixel; and a defect mapping block to map data from the at least one defective sub-pixel to at least one surrounding spare sub-pixel, wherein each spare sub-pixel for each pixel is configured to emit a same primary color as a corresponding sub-pixel for each pixel.
3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein each of the spare subpixel group sub pixel of each of the pixels is configured to emit the same primary color as of the defective subpixel sub pixel.
1. A display system on a system substrate comprising: an array of pixels, wherein each pixel comprises a group of sub-pixels and a group of spare sub-pixels arranged in a matrix, each spare sub-pixel for each pixel is configured to emit a separate primary color, and at least one group of sub-pixels comprises at least one defective sub-pixel; and a defect mapping block to map data from the at least one defective sub-pixel to at least one surrounding spare sub-pixel, wherein each spare sub-pixel for each pixel is configured to emit a same primary color as a corresponding sub-pixel for each pixel.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,302,244 in view of An (2019/0189049).
Regarding claim 1 of instant application is similar in scope to claim 2 of U.S.Patent # 11,302,244 as shown in the claim comparison table above; except each subpixel is a microLED; as claimed. An teaches an array of subpixels and each subpixel is a microLED (para [0051] The first micro LED 140 arranged in the pixel area P is composed of R, G, and B micro LEDs 140R, 140G, and 140B and the second micro LED 142 is also composed of R, G, and B LEDs 142R, 142G, 142B.; para [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of present application to have combined the teachings of U.S. Patent# 11,302,244 with AN, in order to yield predictable results. Regarding claim 3, of instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent# 11,302,244 as shown in the claim comparison table above. Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent# 11,302,244 the method as explained for claim 1 above. U.S. Patent# 11,302,244 fails to teach wherein each of the pixels contains a fixed combination of subpixel elements comprising RGB or RGBW in a stripe pattern or a diamond pattern; as claimed. An teaches array of pixels; wherein each of the pixels contains a fixed combination of subpixel elements comprising RGB or RGBW in a stripe pattern (Fig 2 shows 140R, 140G and 140B arranged besides each other forming a stripe pattern) or a diamond pattern. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of present application to have combined the teachings of U.S. Patent# 11,302,244 with AN, in order to yield predictable results
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,302,244 in view of An (2019/0189049) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (2021/0384267).
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 11,302,244 and An teaches the method as explained for claim 1 above. U.S. Patent No. 11,302,244 and An fails to teach, wherein a first subpixel group emits a red primary color, a second subpixel group emits a blue color, and a third subpixel group emits a green color; as claimed. Yu teaches a display comprising: wherein a first subpixel group emits a red primary color (201; Fig 2A), a second subpixel group emits a blue color (202; Fig 2A), and a third subpixel group emits a green color (203; Fig 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of present application to have combined the teachings of U.S. Patent# 11,302,244 and AN, with Yu, because it is well known in the art to have pixel groups arranged such that same color subpixel forming a single group; in order to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,302,244 in view of An (2019/0189049) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Akimoto (2020/0212269).
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 11,302,244 and An teaches the method as explained for claim 4 above. U.S. Patent No. 11,302,244 and An fails to teach, wherein each of the pixels comprises a redundant-blue subpixel which is utilized for a repair; as claimed. Akimoto teaches a display device comprising: plurality of pixels; wherein wherein each of the pixels comprises a redundant-blue subpixel which is utilized for a repair (para [0038] Other than the three subpixels 22R, 22G, and 22B, the pixel 20 includes at least one redundant subpixel 22s. If one of the three subpixels 22R, 22G, and 22B is the defective subpixel 22d, the redundant subpixel 22s emits light of the original light emission color of the defective subpixel. Para [0057] The redundant subpixel 22s that is unlit has the same configuration as the blue subpixel 22B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of present application to have combined the teachings of U.S. Patent# 11,302,244 and AN, with Akimoto, because it is well known in the art to have pixel with redundant pixels to be driven to repair defective pixel; in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 11,302,244 and An teaches the method as explained for claim 4 above. U.S. Patent No. 11,302,244 and An fails to teach, wherein each of the pixels comprises a combined color pixel which is utilized for a repair; as claimed. Akimoto teaches a display device comprising: plurality of pixels; wherein wherein each of the pixels comprises a combined color pixel which is utilized for a repair (para [0038] Other than the three subpixels 22R, 22G, and 22B, the pixel 20 includes at least one redundant subpixel 22s. If one of the three subpixels 22R, 22G, and 22B is the defective subpixel 22d, the redundant subpixel 22s emits light of the original light emission color of the defective subpixel) (Note: if red is defective, 22s will emit red; if blue is defective, 22s will emit blue; if green is defective, 22s will emit green; thus resulting in combined color pixel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of present application to have combined the teachings of U.S. Patent# 11,302,244 and AN, with Akimoto, because it is well known in the art to have pixel with redundant pixels to be driven to repair defective pixel; in order to yield predictable results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akimoto (2020/0212269).
Regarding claim 12, Akimoto teaches a method of integration for pixels to limit a quantity of integrated microLEDs, the method comprising: having a pixel cluster (Fig 1; para [0035] a portion of the matrix of the pixels 20 ) integrated on a substrate (2; Fig 10A; Fig 10B; fig 10C; para [0030] The display region 10 and the drive IC 50 are provided on a not-illustrated substrate. In the substrate, an interconnect pattern is provided in one surface of an insulative base material and electrically connected to the light-emitting elements included in subpixels 22R, 22G, and 22B of each pixel 20.) wherein the pixel cluster comprises a pixel set (Each of RGB forming pixel set; Fig 1) and a spare pixel set (plurality of 22s forming spare pixel set; Fig 1), wherein the pixel set comprising a RGB subpixels (see illustrated Fig 1 below; para [0036] The pixel 20 includes the three subpixels 22R, 22G, and 22B) and a spare subpixel (see illustrated Fig 1 below; para [0038] Other than the three subpixels 22R, 22G, and 22B, the pixel 20 includes at least one redundant subpixel 22s);and detecting a defected subpixel after an integration process wherein a luminance contribution of the defected subpixel is transferred to a neighboring spare subpixel (para [0038] If one of the three subpixels 22R, 22G, and 22B is the defective subpixel 22d, the redundant subpixel 22s emits light of the original light emission color of the defective subpixel.).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akimoto (2020/0212269) in view of An (2019/01899049) and Cok et al. (2007/0109327).
Regarding claim 13, Akimoto teaches the method, wherein each subpixel comprises four subpixels with three functional subpixels (22G, 22R, 22B; in the top left cluster; Fig 1) and a defected subpixels (22d; in the top left cluster; Fig 1)
Akimoto fails to teach, wherein each subpixel comprises four microLEDs with three functional microLEDs and a defected microLED, increasing a brightness of the functional microLEDs by ½ to compensate for a brightness loss caused by the defected microLED; as claimed.
An teaches a method of integration for pixels to limit a quantity of integrated microLEd's, the method comprising: a set of subpixels; wherein each subpixel comprises four microLEDs with three functional microLEDs (para [0040] the micro LED display panel 100 includes a plurality of pixels P defined by a plurality of gate lines and data lines, and each pixel includes a thin film transistor and red (R), green (G), and blue (B) micro LEDs.) and a defected microLED (para [0054] As such, in the micro LED display device of the present disclosure, the first micro LED 140 and the second micro LED 142 for redundancy may be arranged in one pixel area P, as discussed below.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of present application to have combined the teachings of Akimoto with the An, to provide intended results of improved microLED display.
Akimoto and An fails to teach, increasing a brightness of the functional microLEDs by ½ to compensate for a brightness loss caused by the defected microLED; as claimed.
Cok teaches a method for correcting defect comprising: pixels (31, 35, 33, 39, 37, 38,…Fig 1A); increasing a brightness of the functional subpixel by ½ to compensate for a brightness loss caused by the defected subpixel ( para [0019] In operation, the defective sub-pixel 40 does not respond appropriately to the input signal 14, so that the input signal 14 must be processed by the controller 12 to provide a compensated signal 16 so that, in order to provide the desired luminance and/or chrominance of the display device 10 in the local area surrounding the defective sub-pixel 40, the output of color sub-pixels 64 and 66 in neighboring pixel 39 is modified to compensate for the output of the defective pixel 40. In order to minimize spatial non-uniformity and to provide the desired luminance and chrominance, the output of at least one color sub-pixel in the defective pixel, at least one other, but not all, of the color sub-pixels in a neighboring pixel in the first dimension, are selectively modified, together with additional in-gamut sub-pixels in neighboring pixels in the second dimension, where the at least one other color sub-pixel in the neighboring pixel is closest to the defective sub-pixel. para [0022] The controller 12 also selectively modifies the brightness of the green sub-pixels 60 and 66 to provide the amount of green light that is missing because of the defective in-gamut sub-pixel 40. Because two green sub-pixels are present, they may each provide one half of the necessary light, thus maintaining a spatially balanced compensation.; para [0024] In the above specific example, one-half of the difference in desired luminance is compensated by the in-gamut additional sub-pixel(s) and one-half of the difference in desired luminance is compensated by the color sub-pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of present application to have modified the method of driving the display of Akimoto and An with the teachings of Cok, because this will result in improved display that compensates for defective light-emitting elements in a full-color display.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Remarks on page 6-8 regarding claim 1 are not persuasive. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended which changes the scope of the claim. Upon further consideration of remarks of claim 1 in view of amended claim 1, Examiner has rejected claim 1 under nonstatutory double patenting, as explained above. In response to applicant's argument on page 7, lines 11-14 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cok et al. (2020/0051482) A redundant pixel layout for a display comprises a display substrate and an array of pixels disposed on or over the display substrate. Each pixel comprises a first subpixel and a redundant second subpixel. The first subpixel includes a first subpixel controller electrically connected to controller wires and a first light emitter electrically connected to a first-light-emitter wire. The first light emitter is controlled by the first subpixel controller through the first-light-emitter wire. The second subpixel includes a second-subpixel-controller location connected to the controller wires and a second-light-emitter location comprising a second-light-emitter wire. The first light emitter is adjacent to the second-light-emitter location and the first light emitter and the second-light-emitter location are closer together than are any two pixels in the array of pixels.
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 PREMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 EASON can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/PREMAL R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights