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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-20 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, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite, inter alia:
“a display panel that includes a plurality of pixels divided into a plurality of pixel groups,
wherein each of the plurality of pixels includes light-emitting elements connected to a first electrode that is configured to supply an anode voltage and a second electrode that is configured to supply a cathode voltage,
wherein each of the light-emitting elements includes an anode connected to the first electrode and a cathode electrically connected to the second electrode,
wherein anodes of light-emitting elements included in each pixel group are connected to each other,
wherein a light-emitting element from the light-emitting elements emits light by receiving the cathode voltage controlled such that a difference between the anode voltage and the cathode voltage is greater than a threshold voltage of the light-emitting element.”
Under reasonable interpretation of the emphasized limitations of claims 1 and 11 above, the claims cover the scope wherein each and every plurality of pixels are connected to a same single first electrode that supply a single anode voltage, and each and every plurality of pixels are connected to a same single second electrode that supply a single cathode voltage, wherein all pixels within the display panel are driven simultaneously with same anode voltage and cathode voltage.
Corresponding specification however does not provide support for the above scope. In particular, the plurality of light emitting elements within pixels in embodiment from fig. 1-10 of specification each have different anode electrodes connected, while the plurality of light emitting elements in plurality of pixels in embodiment from fig. 11-17 each have different cathode electrodes connected. Additional specification regarding test of pixels by supplying test voltage to cathode also requires that cathode electrode of different pixels to be connected to different signals.
The corresponding claim limitations therefore lacks written description, or is at least indefinite with regard to what the first electrode / anode voltage and second electrode / cathode voltage constitute.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected for dependency on rejected independent claims 1 and 11.
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 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.
Claims 3 and 13 recite: “wherein the cathode voltage is controlled with a first voltage that turns on the light-emitting element to emit light or a second voltage that turns off the light-emitting element to not emit light.”
Claims 1 and 11 in which claims 3 and 13 depend on already recite: “wherein a light-emitting element from the light-emitting elements emits light by receiving the cathode voltage controlled such that a difference between the anode voltage and the cathode voltage is greater than or equal to a threshold voltage of the light-emitting element”.
The scope of claims 1 and 11 cover the situation that any voltage received by cathode of light-emitting element (i.e. “receiving cathode voltage controlled such…”) are voltage that is “greater than or equal to threshold voltage”, which would control the light-emitting element to emit light. Claims 3 and 13 then state that cathode voltage may be a second voltage that “turns off the light-emitting element to not emit light”. The scope of cathode voltage and how it is being controlled is unclear from contradicting claim limitations. Furthermore, it is submitted that any voltage received by cathode must either be a voltage that turns on the light emitting element or a voltage that turns off the light emitting element. In other word, the light emitting element is either on, or off, and all voltage received by cathode are covered by the claimed “first voltage” or “second voltage” in a mutually exclusive and collective exhaustive manner, hence it is unclear how claim limitation of 3 and 13 further limit independent claims in which they depend on.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected for dependency on rejected claim 3 and 13.
Claims 5 and 15 recite: “wherein the test voltage is applied to the cathode of the light-emitting element instead of the second voltage”.
However, claims 3 and 13 already require the cathode voltage is either “first voltage” or “second voltage”. The limitation of claims 5 and 15 require that the test voltage is not the claimed “second voltage”. Given that the cathode voltage is either “first voltage” or “second voltage”, it appears that the test voltage is “first voltage”, yet the claim does not clarify whether the scope of test voltage is same as first voltage, or, considering that “test voltage” is claimed under a different denomination from “first voltage”, whether the scope of test voltage shall be interpreted as different from first voltage.
Claims 6 and 16 recite: “wherein the test voltage is set such that a difference between the test voltage and the first voltage is greater than or equal to the threshold voltage of the light-emitting element.”
It is claimed in claims 1, 3, 11 and 13 however that cathode voltage and/or first voltage is a voltage “that turns on the light-emitting element”, and the light emitting element emit light because “a difference between the anode voltage and the cathode voltage is greater than or equal to a threshold voltage”. That is, the first voltage is already a voltage greater/higher than threshold voltage required to turn on light emitting element. The corresponding specification however lack description about test voltage is additionally being a threshold volage higher/greater than the first voltage, on top of the first voltage which is already higher/greater than the threshold voltage.
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 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al., US 20120098805 A1 (hereinafter “Kubota”), in view of Nagayama, US 20070273294 A1 (hereinafter “Nagayama”).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota discloses a display device (fig. 1, display device 1) comprising:
a display panel that includes a plurality of pixels divided into a plurality of pixel groups (fig. 1, 2, paragraphs 61-82, display area 10 with plurality of pixel circuits 20, each pixel circuit 20 including two pixels E1 and E2, and pixel E1 and E2 within each pixel circuit 20 constitute a claimed pixel group),
wherein each of the plurality of pixels includes light-emitting elements connected to a first electrode that is configured to supply an anode voltage and a second electrode that is configured to supply a cathode voltage,
wherein each of the light-emitting elements includes an anode connected to the first electrode and a cathode electrically connected to the second electrode,
wherein anodes of light-emitting elements included in each pixel group are connected to each other,
(fig. 2, paragraphs 70-82, each of the plurality of pixels includes light emitting element E1 or E2, each light emitting element is connected to a first electrode 22 to supply anode voltage from transistor Tr2 and each light emitting element is connected to a second electrode 24a or 24b to supply cathode voltage Vct1[i] or Vct2[i], paragraph 75, anode 22 of each pixel within the group are connected together: “In the first light emitting device E1, the common electrode 22 is the anode (pixel electrode) and the first opposed electrode 24a is the cathode. In the second light emitting device E2, the common electrode 22 is the anode (pixel electrode) and the second opposed electrode 24b is the cathode. That is, the common electrode 22 serves as the common anode of the first light emitting device E1 and the second light emitting device E2”, see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
1165
1150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a light-emitting element from the light-emitting elements emits light by receiving the cathode voltage controlled such that a difference between the anode voltage and the cathode voltage is greater than a threshold voltage of the light-emitting element (paragraph 76: “In the first light emitting device E1 and the second light emitting device E2, when a voltage equal to or higher than the light emission threshold voltage with is applied between the anode and the cathode, a current flows from the anode to the cathode in the light emission layer. The light emission layer emits light with a brightness corresponding to the magnitude of the current”).
Kubota does not disclose in particular:
wherein a test voltage is applied to the cathode of the light-emitting element to detect whether an electrical short circuit has occurred between the first electrode and the second electrode.
In similar field of endeavor, Nagayama discloses similar display device with light emitting element in pixel connected to cathode and anode electrodes (fig. 1, 54-61, 88, display apparatus with LED pixels, the LED EL having first electrode connected to anode voltage and second electrode connected to cathode voltage), wherein in order to detect short/defect of light emitting element, a test voltage is applied to the cathode of the light-emitting element to detect whether an electrical short circuit has occurred between the first electrode and the second electrode (fig. 2, step S2, detect short-circuited pixel, fig. 8, paragraphs 99-105, the measurement control computer 21 sends a picture signal to the organic EL display apparatus 20, and the organic EL display apparatus 20 writes a control voltage by using the controller 18 in the holding capacitors Cs via the signal lines 11 so that the operation transistors Q2 of all the pixels are turned off (Step S52). Then, the organic EL devices 17 of all the pixels 8 are set to be in a non-lighting state. Next, the controller 18 brings the cathode potential close to the potential side of the voltage supply line. That is, the controller 18 changes the cathode potential in a direction higher than that during light emission (Step S53). In this state, the controller 18 writes a control voltage only in one pixel with respect to the n-th pixel, thereby turning on the operation transistor Q2 (Step S54). Then, the cathode potential of the organic EL device 17 becomes higher than the anode potential, and is supplied with a voltage (reverse bias) in a direction opposite to that during light emission. In the case where the organic EL device 17 is normal, there is rectification, so a current does not flow between the anode electrode and the cathode electrode even at a reverse bias. However, when the anode electrode and the cathode electrode are short-circuited, a current flows in a direction opposite to that during light emission. The current measuring unit 23 measures the current (Step S55). The measurement result is sent to the measurement control computer 21. Consequently, the measurement control computer 21 determines the target n-th pixel to be a defective pixel, by determining the case where the amount of a current in a direction opposite to that during light emission at a time of a reverse bias is larger than a predetermined amount to be unusual. In the case where a short-circuit is found as a result of the determination of a defect, the measurement control computer 21 stores the positional data (coordinate value) of the short-circuited pixel (Step S56). After the determination of a defect with respect to the n-th pixel, the measurement control computer 21 sends a control signal to the organic EL display apparatus 20, and the controller 18 turns off the operation transistor Q2 (Step S57). After that, the above-mentioned operation is repeated until the determination of a defect with respect to all the pixels is completed (Step S58). Thus, the lighting state of an entire display region surface can be detected.)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the concept of sending reverse biasing voltage to cathode electrode of light emitting element to test for short, such as disclosed by Nagayama, into the display device of Kubota, to constitute wherein a test voltage is applied to the cathode of the light-emitting element to detect whether an electrical short circuit has occurred between the first electrode and the second electrode, such is incorporation of known technique into a known device to yield predictable result, the result would have been predictable and would allow display device to automatically detect defect in pixels, provide remedies, and increase robustness of display device.
Regarding claim 13, Kubota in view of Nagayama discloses the display device of claim 11, wherein the cathode voltage is controlled with a first voltage that turns on the light-emitting element to emit light or a second voltage that turns off the light-emitting element to not emit light (it is submitted that any voltage received by cathode must either be a voltage that turns on the light emitting element or a voltage that turns off the light emitting element. In other word, the light emitting element is either on, or off, and all voltage received by cathode are covered by the claimed “first voltage” or “second voltage” in a mutually exclusive and collective exhaustive manner, the cathode voltage applied to second electrode as in Kubota in view of Nagayama therefore is either the claimed first voltage or the claimed second voltage).
Regarding claim 1, this is a display panel counterpart claim of display device claim 11, both reciting similar subject matter. Hence claim 1 is rejected for same reason as set forth in rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 3, this is a display panel counterpart claim of display device claim 13, both reciting similar subject matter. Hence claim 3 is rejected for same reason as set forth in rejection of claim 13.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Nagayama as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hu et al., US 20230230535 A1 (hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota in view of Nagayama discloses the display device of claim 11.
Kubota in view of Nagayama does not disclose in particular wherein the anode voltage is controlled such that the light-emitting element emits light at a black-gray level.
In similar field of endeavor of display device, Hu discloses anode of light-emitting element in pixels may be reset to black state voltage in order to improve display quality (paragraph 50: “When the anode of the light-emitting element is reset, the first initialization voltage is negative, and V1 > V2. When the cathode of the light-emitting element is reset, the first initialization voltage is positive, and V1 < V2. An example is taken in which the anode of the light-emitting element is reset. In the first display stage Ti1 (effective frame), anode reset voltage V1 is generally the same as the second power signal PVEE of the cathode of the light-emitting element 20, avoiding the problem that the black state is not black enough due to a positive voltage drop between the anode and the cathode when the light-emitting element 20 is reset. In the second display stage Ti2 (ineffective frame), anode reset voltage V2 cannot be greater than anode reset voltage V1, further avoiding the case where the anode is not completely reset. In general, |V1| < |V2|. In this way, the case where the black state of the display panel is not black enough is effectively avoided, improving the effect of resetting the anode of the light-emitting element 20”)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the concept of resetting anode voltage to black state level, such as disclosed by Hu, into the display device of Kubota in view of Nagayama, to constitute wherein the anode voltage is controlled such that the light-emitting element emits light at a black-gray level, such is incorporation of known technique into a known device to yield predictable result, the result would have been predictable and would allow anode of pixels to be properly reset and allow display device to accurately display image during different display cycles.
Regarding claim 2, this is a display panel counterpart claim of display device claim 12, both reciting similar subject matter. Hence claim 2 is rejected for same reason as set forth in rejection of claim 12.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Nagayama as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of An, US 20190189049 A1 (hereinafter “An”).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Kubota in view of Nagayama discloses the display device of claim 11.
Kubota in view of Nagayama does not disclose (from claim 18) wherein the light-emitting element includes a main light-emitting element and a sub-light-emitting element, and the sub-light-emitting element is driven instead of the main light-emitting element when the main light-emitting element is defective, and
(from claim 19) wherein, when the electrical short circuit has occurred between the first electrode and the second electrode, sub-light-emitting elements are driven instead of main light-emitting elements of all pixels in the pixel group in which the electrical short circuit has occurred.
In similar field of endeavor of display device, An disclose similar pixel groups wherein each pixel group comprises two pixels, that the light-emitting element within pixel group includes a main light-emitting element and a sub-light-emitting element (fig. 1, 2, paragraphs 49-56, display panel with pixel grid P, within each pixel grid P, there are three pixel groups, one for each color R, G, and B, that one pixel group comprises two red pixels, or two green pixels or two blue pixels, one as a main first/main micro LED, and one as substitute/redundancy LED), and the sub-light-emitting element is driven instead of the main light-emitting element when the main light-emitting element is defective, and wherein, when the electrical short circuit has occurred between the first electrode and the second electrode, sub-light-emitting elements are driven instead of main light-emitting elements of all pixels in the pixel group in which the electrical short circuit has occurred (see paragraphs 52-56, 86, 87, “The first micro LED 140 is a main luminescent micro LED and emits light of R, G, and B colors respectively from the micro LEDs 140R, 140G, and 140B for R, G, and B to display an image as the signal is applied from outside. The second micro LED 142 is a redundancy micro LED and may operate instead of the first micro LED 140 when a defect occurs in the first micro LED 140 of a specific pixel”, “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”, “when the first micro LED 140 and the second micro LED 142 are provided in the pixel area P and a defect is generated in the first micro LED 140 in the pixel area P, the image degradation due to the defect of the first micro LED 140 can be prevented by not applying the signal to the first micro LED 140 and by instead applying the signal to the second micro LED 142 such that the second micro LED 142 is luminescent”. Herein as each pixel group of same color contain only two pixels, the redundancy LED being driven when first/main LED is shorted out constitute all pixel in a group other than the LED that is defective).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the concept of driving redundancy LED with pixel group in case of a detected defect, such as disclosed by An, into the display device of Kubota in view of Nagayama, to constitute (from claim 18) wherein the light-emitting element includes a main light-emitting element and a sub-light-emitting element, and the sub-light-emitting element is driven instead of the main light-emitting element when the main light-emitting element is defective, and (from claim 19) wherein, when the electrical short circuit has occurred between the first electrode and the second electrode, sub-light-emitting elements are driven instead of main light-emitting elements of all pixels in the pixel group in which the electrical short circuit has occurred, such is incorporation of known technique into a known device to yield predictable result, the result would have been predictable and would allow image to be property displayed in case of detected defect, prevent degradation of image quality, and increase robustness of display device.
Regarding claim 20, Kubota in view of Nagayama discloses the display device of claim 11.
Kubota in view of Nagayama does not disclose wherein the light-emitting element is a micro-sized inorganic light-emitting element.
In similar field of endeavor of display device, An disclose display device wherein pixel with light-emitting element wherein the light-emitting element is a micro-sized inorganic light-emitting element (paragraphs 39, 16, “As shown in FIG. 1, a micro LED display device includes a micro LED display panel 100 and a panel driving unit for driving the micro LED display panel 110”, “In the present disclosure, a micro LED composed of an inorganic material is transferred on a large area substrate to manufacture a display device, so that a large area display device having a high brightness, a long life, and a low unit cost can be easily manufactured”).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the concept of using micro light emitting element as emitter in pixels such as disclosed by An, into the display device of Kubota in view of Nagayama, to constitute wherein the light-emitting element is a micro-sized inorganic light-emitting element, such is incorporation of known technique into a known device to yield predictable result, the result would have been predictable and would allow light emitting elements of pixels in display device to attain the benefit of inorganic micro-LED emitter such as being able to be transferred on a large area substrate to manufacture a display device, so that a large area display device having a high brightness, a long life, and a low unit cost can be easily manufactured (An paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 8, this is a display panel counterpart claim of display device claim 18, both reciting similar subject matter. Hence claim 8 is rejected for same reason as set forth in rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 9, this is a display panel counterpart claim of display device claim 19, both reciting similar subject matter. Hence claim 19 is rejected for same reason as set forth in rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 10, this is a display panel counterpart claim of display device claim 20, both reciting similar subject matter. Hence claim 10 is rejected for same reason as set forth in rejection of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEIJIE SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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.
/PEIJIE SHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2622
/PATRICK N EDOUARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2622