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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al., US 2022/0157215 A1, hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a display device (fig. 1, ¶ 36) comprising: a display panel (fig. 1, element 150, ¶ 36) including a first sub-pixel (fig. 1, SP, ¶ 44); a gate driver (fig. 1, element 130, ¶ 39) that provides a sensing control signal (fig. 23, see “sense” signal) having a first voltage (fig. 22, VGH2) to the first sub-pixel during a first sensing period (fig. 23, periods (1)-(4)) and a sensing control signal having a second voltage (fig. 22, VGH2’, ¶ 104) different from the first voltage to the first sub-pixel during a second sensing period (fig. 23, periods (6)-(9)); a data driver (fig. 1, element 140, ¶ 40) that receives a first sensing voltage from the first sub-pixel through a sensing line in the first sensing period (fig. 6, ¶ 56; also see fig. 7, connection of sensing line REF1 to element 140; note that per fig. 23, first sensing voltage is provided during the first sampling period) and a second sensing voltage from the first sub-pixel through the sensing line in the second sensing period (fig. 23, second sensing volage is provided during the second sampling period); and a driving controller (fig. 1 and fig. 9, element 120, ¶ 69 and 101) that controls the data driver and the gate driver (¶ 38) and senses a characteristic of the first sub-pixel based on the first sensing voltage and the second sensing voltage (¶ 101, deterioration of the sensing transistor is determined based on the instances of Vsen2 such as when Vsen2 is equal to V3 or V4 in different sensing periods).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches that the driving controller senses a difference between the first sensing voltage and the second sensing voltage as the characteristic of the first sub-pixel (¶ 101-104, based on a difference of V3 and V4, the deterioration of the sensing transistor is determined).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches that the data driver provides a data voltage to the first sub-pixel through a data line during a display period (¶ 60), and the driving controller compensates for the data voltage applied to the first sub-pixel based on the characteristics of the first sub-pixel (¶ 63; also see setting VGH2’ which compensates a data voltage applied to the subpixel: ¶ 101-104).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches that the data voltage decreases as the difference between the first sensing voltage and the second sensing voltage increases (fig. 20, wherein V3 decreases as the difference between V3 and V4 increases).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches that the data driver provides a reference voltage to the first sub-pixel through a data line in the first sensing period and the second sensing period (fig. 20, Gdata, ¶ 84).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches that the gate driver provides a scan control signal (fig. 10, scan) to the first sub-pixel, wherein the first sub-pixel includes a first transistor (fig. 10, DT) including a control electrode connected to a first node, a first electrode connected to a first power line, and a second electrode connected to a second node (see DT); a second transistor (fig. 10, SW) including a control electrode receiving the scan control signal, a first electrode connected to the data driver through the data line, and a second electrode connected to the first node (see SW); a third transistor (fig. 10, ST) including a control electrode receiving the sensing control signal, a first electrode connected to the second node, and a second electrode connected to the data driver through the sensing line (see ST); a storage capacitor (fig. 10, CST) including a first electrode connected to the first node and a second electrode connected to the second node (see CST); and a light emitting element including a first electrode connected to the second node a second electrode connected to the second power line (fig. 10, OLED).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches that each of the first sensing period and the second sensing period includes an initialization period (fig. 23, periods (1) and (6)) and a sensing input period (fig. 23, periods (2-4) and (7-9)), and the scan control signal and the sensing control signal have an off level during the initialization period and an on level during the sensing input period (see the state of Scan and Sense signals).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches that the display panel further includes a sensing capacitor (fig. 10, see capacitor connected to REF1 line) including a first electrode connected to the sensing line and a second electrode connected to a reference power source, and the data driver includes a first switch (fig. 10, SPRE switch) connecting a power line (VPRES) to the sensing line, wherein an initialization voltage is applied to the sensing line (¶ 86).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches that the first sensing voltage and the second sensing voltage are voltages charged in the sensing capacitor (¶ 90).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches a driving method of a display device (fig. 1, ¶ 36), comprising: providing a sensing control signal having a first voltage to a first sub-pixel (Sense signal provided at VGH2, ¶ 104); receiving a first sensing voltage from the first sub-pixel through a sensing line (Vsen2 at, for example, V3 voltage, ¶ 101); providing the sensing control signal having a second voltage which is different from the first voltage to the first sub-pixel (Sense signal provided at VGH2’, ¶ 104); receiving a second sensing voltage from the first sub-pixel through the sensing line (Vsen2 at, for example, V4 voltage, ¶ 101); and sensing a characteristic of the first sub-pixel based on the first sensing voltage and the second sensing voltage (¶ 101, deterioration of the sensing transistor is determined based on the instances of Vsen2 such as when Vsen2 is equal to V3 or V4 in different sensing periods; also see fig. 26).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches that the characteristic of the first sub-pixel is sensed by a difference between the first sensing voltage and the second sensing voltage (¶ 101-104, based on a difference of V3 and V4, the deterioration of the sensing transistor is determined).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches compensating for a data voltage applied to the sub-pixel based on the characteristic of the first sub-pixel (¶ 63; also see setting VGH2’ which compensates a data voltage applied to the subpixel: ¶ 101-104).
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches that the data voltage decreases as the difference between the first sensing voltage and the second sensing voltage increases (fig. 20, wherein V3 decreases as the difference between V3 and V4 increases).
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches providing a reference voltage to the first sub-pixel through a data line (fig. 20, Gdata, ¶ 84).
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches an electronic device (fig. 1, ¶ 32), comprising: a display device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Lee et al., US 2014/0022289 A1, hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches that the first sub-pixel displays a first color, the display panel further includes a second sub-pixel displaying a second color and a third sub-pixel displaying a third color (¶ 42).
Park does not specifically teach that the driving controller independently senses each of characteristics of the first to third sub-pixels.
Lee, however, teaches that the driving controller independently senses each of characteristics of the first to third sub-pixels (¶ 101-104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park in view of Lee. Note that Park and Lee teach a similarly connected pixel configuration in fig. 6 of Park and fig. 5 of Lee. While Park teaches details regarding the compensation of a control signal of a sensing transistor, Lee teaches that such sensing and compensation is performed independently for each subpixel. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to perform the sensing and compensating method of Park to each subpixel independently, thereby ensuring that each subpixel is properly compensated for degradations, thus improving the uniformity of the display device.
Regarding claim 11, Park does not specifically teach that when sensing a characteristic of one of the first to third sub-pixels, the data driver provides a reference voltage to the one of the first to third sub-pixels and provides a standby voltage to the remaining first to third sub-pixels.
Lee, however, teaches that when sensing a characteristic of one of the first to third sub-pixels, the data driver provides a reference voltage to the one of the first to third sub-pixels and provides a standby voltage to the remaining first to third sub-pixels (see ¶ 101-104, application of Vblack to subpixels that are not being sensed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park in view of Lee. Note that Park and Lee teach a similarly connected pixel configuration in fig. 6 of Park and fig. 5 of Lee. While Park teaches details regarding the compensation of a control signal of a sensing transistor, Lee teaches that such sensing and compensation is performed independently for each subpixel. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to perform the sensing and compensating method of Park to each subpixel independently, thereby ensuring that each subpixel is properly compensated for degradations, thus improving the uniformity of the display device.
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches sensing a characteristic of different subpixels of different colors (¶ 42).
Park does not specifically teach sensing a characteristic of a second sub-pixel displaying a second color, wherein the first sub-pixel displays a first color, and wherein the characteristic of the second sub-pixel is independently sensed from the characteristic of the first sub-pixel.
Lee, however, teaches that the characteristic of the second sub-pixel is independently sensed from the characteristic of the first sub-pixel (¶ 101-104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park in view of Lee. Note that Park and Lee teach a similarly connected pixel configuration in fig. 6 of Park and fig. 5 of Lee. While Park teaches details regarding the compensation of a control signal of a sensing transistor, Lee teaches that such sensing and compensation is performed independently for each subpixel. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to perform the sensing and compensating method of Park to each subpixel independently, thereby ensuring that each subpixel is properly compensated for degradations, thus improving the uniformity of the display device.
Regarding claim 19, Park does not teach that when sensing the characteristics of the second sub-pixel, a standby voltage is provided to the first sub-pixel and a reference voltage is provided to the second sub-pixel.
Lee teaches that when sensing the characteristics of the second sub-pixel, a standby voltage is provided to the first sub-pixel and a reference voltage is provided to the second sub-pixel (see ¶ 101-104, application of Vblack to subpixels that are not being sensed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park in view of Lee. Note that Park and Lee teach a similarly connected pixel configuration in fig. 6 of Park and fig. 5 of Lee. While Park teaches details regarding the compensation of a control signal of a sensing transistor, Lee teaches that such sensing and compensation is performed independently for each subpixel. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to perform the sensing and compensating method of Park to each subpixel independently, thereby ensuring that each subpixel is properly compensated for degradations, thus improving the uniformity of the display device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Lee, as applied above, and further in view of Choi et al., US 2022/0351680 A1, hereinafter “Choi”.
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches that each of the first to third sub-pixels (fig. 6, SP1-3) includes a third transistor (fig. 10, ST) connected to the sensing line (REF1); and a light-emitting element (OLED).
Park and Lee do not teach that a third transistor of at least one of the first to third sub-pixels overlaps a first electrode of the light emitting element of the at least one of the first to third sub-pixels in a plan view.
Choi, however, clearly teaches that a third transistor of at least one of the first to third sub-pixels overlaps a first electrode of the light emitting element of the at least one of the first to third sub-pixels in a plan view (fig. 3, see the overlap of T3 and AND_R).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park and Lee, as applied above, further in view of Choi. The references teach similar pixel circuits and Choi further teaches details regarding a physical layout of such a circuit. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to manufacture such a pixel circuit according to the layout of Choi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEPEHR AZARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7903. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11AM-7PM.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at (571) 272-7764. 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.
/SEPEHR AZARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621