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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, line 3 which recites “…on the substrate wherein…” should be corrected to “…on a substrate wherein…”.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spare neighbor" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 which depends upon claim 1 is also rejected due to it dependence on claim 1.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by An (2019/0189049).
Regarding claim 1, An teaches a method of integration for pixels to limit a quantity of integrated microLEd's, the method comprising: having a cluster of pixels (P; Fig 2; 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) integrated on the substrate (Fig 2; para [0049] As shown in FIG. 2, the micro LED display panel 100 includes a substrate 110, a plurality of first micro LEDs 140 and a plurality of second micro LEDs 142 mounted on the substrate 110.) wherein each cluster comprises a set of pixels (140; Fig 2) and a set of spare subpixels (142; Fig 2; para [0052] The second micro LED 142 is a redundancy micro LED ) and each pixel comprising a set of subpixels (R, G, B) and a spare subpixel (para [0050] he first micro LED 140 and the second micro LED 142 are formed in a pixel area P); and detecting a subpixel be defective after the integration process (para [0055] describes the integration process; para [0056] ) wherein a luminance contribution of the defected subpixel is transferred to the spare neighbor (para [0056] the redundancy micro LED 142 may be provided separately from the main luminescent micro LED 140 so that when a defect is generated in the main luminescent micro LED 140, a signal is not applied to the defective micro LED 140 and is instead applied to the corresponding redundancy micro LED 142, thereby preventing an image quality degradation due to the defective micro LED 140. Para [0086]).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (2019/0189049) in view of Cok et al. (2007/0109327).
Regarding claim 2, An teaches the method of claim 1, wherein there are three microLED’s for each subpixel (para [0040] each pixel includes a thin film transistor and red (R), green (G), and blue (B) micro LEDs.).
An fails to teach; wherein there are four microLED's for each subpixel and one of the microLED is not functional, the each one of the remaining micro-LED brightness will increase by ½ to compensate for the brightness loss caused by the defective micro-LED; as claimed.
Cok teaches a method for correcting defect comprising: subpixels (31, 35, 33, 39, 37, 38,…Fig 1A); wherein there are four microLED's for each subpixel (Fig 1a shows element 38 comprising: four) and one of the microLED is not functional (defective 40; Fig 1A; ), the each one of the remaining micro-LED brightness will increase by ½ to compensate for the brightness loss caused by the defective micro-LED ( 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Akimoto (2020/0212269) teaches An image display device includes a plurality of pixels each of which includes a plurality of first subpixels and a second subpixel. The plurality of first subpixels is configured to emit red light, green light, and blue light. The second subpixel is configured to emit blue light. The plurality of pixels includes at least one pixel in which the plurality of first subpixels includes a defective subpixel which is supposed to emit predetermined light with a predetermined color.
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