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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2021/0223621) in view of Nathan et al. (US 2015/0339977; disclosed in IDS).
Regarding claim 1:
Huang discloses:
Claim 1
Huang
1. A display device comprising:
a processor configured to generate an input analog signal based on an input digital signal;
Not disclosed by Huang
a light-emitting circuit including a first pixel circuit configured to generate a first pixel signal corresponding to the input analog signal and a light-emitting element configured to emit a first light based on the first pixel signal; and
Paragraph 36
a feedback circuit including a light-receiving element configured to generate a light-receiving signal by collecting the first light and a feedback signal generator configured to sense the light-receiving signal to generate a feedback signal, and
Paragraph 36
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine whether a first difference value between the feedback signal and a reference input signal exceeds a threshold value; and
Paragraph 36
generate a first compensation signal based on determining that the first difference value exceeds the threshold value.
Paragraph 36
Huang does not disclose:
"a processor configured to generate an input analog signal based on an input digital signal"
It's hard to imagine how Huang could function without this, but admittedly Huang does not show it. To make it explicitly clear this is known in the art, Nathan discloses:
a processor configured to generate an input analog signal based on an input digital signal (Fig. 1B, paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Huang the elements taught by Nathan.
The rationale is as follows:
Huang and Nathan are directed to the same field of art. Because Huang is primarily concerned with the feedback process itself, Huang does not discuss how where the pixel signals come from. Nathan shows how this process works, allowing the device to function. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Huang in view of Nathan discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to supply the compensation signal to the pixel circuit of the light-emitting circuit (Huang paragraph 67: “real-time compensation…of the pixel unit”).
Regarding claim 4:
Huang in view of Nathan discloses:
wherein the reference input signal is the same as the input digital signal or the input analog signal (it is comparing it to the ideal intensity, as per Huang paragraph 36, which is the intensity set by the input signal).
Regarding claim 5:
Huang in view of Nathan discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: define a reference input time for each time that one row of a panel including the pixel circuit and the light-emitting element is driven (as per Huang Fig. 11: “driving the light-emitting element to emit light,” where Nathan, e.g., paragraph 205, discloses driving them by row).
Regarding claim 7:
Huang in view of Nathan discloses:
wherein the feedback circuit is disposed between a display back plane located on an opposite side of the light-emitting circuit which is located on a front side of the display device and the light-emitting circuit (e.g., as per Huang Figs. 7-8, where 151 is the feedback circuit).
Regarding claim 8:
Huang in view of Nathan discloses:
a reflective element configured to reflect the first light such that the first light is transferred to the light-receiving element, and wherein the reflective element is disposed between the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element (paragraph 36: reflective layer 140, where as, e.g., Fig. 7 it might be between the light-receiving element and reflective element 150).
Regarding claim 9:
Huang in view of Nathan discloses:
wherein the reflective element includes at least one low refractive index layer and at least one high refractive index layer (paragraph 56: MoO3 and cryolite are high and low index, respectively), and wherein the reflective element totally reflects the first light to the light-receiving element (the claim defines “the first light” as light collected by the light-receiving element, and therefore “the first light” is totally reflected because only reflected light is received by it).1
Regarding claim 10:
Huang in view of Nathan discloses:
wherein the high refractive index layer is a PDL (pixel define layer), and the low refractive index layer is a black PDL (Huang does not call it that, but its position on the edge of the emission area and the black matrix in, e.g., Fig. 7, amounts to a pixel define layer, which are just elements that define the edge of a pixel).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14-15:
This are claims to the method performed by the display device of the earlier claims and is met when the device operates. All elements positively recited have already been identified. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Nathan, and further in view of Wang (US 2020/0212137)
Regarding claim 3:
Huang in view of Nathan discloses a display device as discussed above.
Huang in view of Nathan does not disclose:
“wherein the pixel circuit is further configured to generate a second pixel signal corresponding to the compensation signal, wherein the light-emitting element emits a second light based on the second pixel signal, wherein the light-receiving element generates a second light-receiving signal by collecting the second light, wherein the feedback signal generator senses the second light-receiving signal to generate a second feedback signal, and wherein the processor determines not to generate the compensation signal based on determining that a second difference value between the second feedback signal and the reference input signal does not exceed the threshold value.”
Wang discloses:
wherein the pixel circuit is further configured to generate a second pixel signal corresponding to the compensation signal, wherein the light-emitting element emits a second light based on the second pixel signal, wherein the light-receiving element generates a second light-receiving signal by collecting the second light, wherein the feedback signal generator senses the second light-receiving signal to generate a second feedback signal (e.g., paragraph 78, Fig. 6: there is one photodetector for pairs of pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Huang in view of Nathan the elements taught by Wang.
The rationale is as follows:
Huang, Nathan, and Wang are directed to the same field of art.
Wang discloses this can save time (paragraph 80), and also obviously reduces the number of photodetectors needed. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Huang, etc., discloses:
wherein the processor determines not to generate the compensation signal based on determining that a second difference value between the second feedback signal and the reference input signal does not exceed the threshold value (this is already how Huang works, so in the combination it would do it with both signals).
Regarding claim 6:
Huang, etc., discloses:
wherein the panel including the pixel circuit and the light-emitting element is disposed in a stripe type or a pentile type (e.g., Wang Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cok et al. (US 2010/0201275); Sakairi et al. (US 2014/0240370); Xiao et al. (US 2018/0350310).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
1 Note that in paragraph 56 Huang talks about 99% reflectance. It appears from the discussion here that this loss is due to other layers and not actually the reflector itself. But either way Huang meets the claim language with respect to “the first light.”