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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 December 2025 has been entered.
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) 1-4, 5-6, 8-9, 11-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju et al. (US 2020/0051472) in view of Jung et al. (US 10,043,452) and further in view of Jo et al. (US 2021/0126079)
Regarding claim 1:
Ju discloses:
A display device, comprising:
a power supply configured to supply a first power, a second power, and a third power to a first power line, a second power line, and a third power line, respectively (paragraph 55: ELVDD, ELVSS, and paragraph 71: Vinit), wherein each of the first power, the second power and the third power varies in voltage level during one frame period (shown in Fig. 2); and
pixels connected to at least one of scan lines and data lines, and connected to a common control line that is configured to supply common control signals, the first power line, the second power line, and the third power line (Fig. 1, where GC is the common control line),
wherein the one frame period corresponds to a period between two consecutive common control signals (paragraph 68: the control signal starts the initialization of a frame),
wherein the pixels simultaneously emit light when the second power is changed to a low level (as per Fig. 2: ELVSS is low during “Emission”).
wherein the third power is for initializing the pixels (paragraph 71).
wherein each of the pixels comprises a driving transistor configured to control a current to be supplied to a light emitting element (Fig. 1: T1), and
wherein the one frame period includes a display scan period, the display scan period including:
a first non-emission section including a first initialization section in which the driving transistor is initialized (paragraph 67),
a second initialization section in which an anode electrode of the light emitting element is initialized (paragraph 68),
a threshold voltage compensation section in which a threshold voltage of the driving transistor is compensated for (paragraph 72), and
a data write section in which a data signal is written in the pixels (paragraph 77); and
a first emission section in which the pixels simultaneously emit light (paragraph 80).
Ju does not discloses:
(A) “a number of times the second power is changed to the low level during the one frame period changes in response to an image refresh rate,” and
“wherein a number of times the second power is changed to the low level between the two consecutive common control signals is a first value that is greater than or equal to 1 when the image refresh rate is a first rate, and a second value greater than the first value when the image refresh rate is a second rate lower than the first rate.”
(B) “a third initialization section in which the second power changes from a high level to the low level, and the third power changes from a high level to a low level and back to the high level”
Regarding (A):
Jung discloses:
a number of times the second power is changed to the low level during the one frame period changes in response to an image refresh rate (column 9, line 60 to column 10, line 15: here what Jung calls a “frame period” is not the same as applicant. Applicant considers a frame period to repeat each time the control signal is provide. Jung describes the power as changing every frame period, but because the control signal is masked in some of these, by applicant’s definition a frame is a single one of Jung’s frames at 60 Hz but 60 of Jung’s frames at 1 Hz, and the second power changes in each of these),
wherein a number of times the second power is changed to the low level between the two consecutive common signals is a first value that is greater than or equal to 1 when the image refresh rate is a first rate, and a second value greater than the first value when the image refresh rate is a second rate lower than the first rate (Jung Fig. 5 shows the second power – which Jung calls ELVc changing from low to high to low in what Jung calls a “frame.” As seen in Fig. 7 this power changes multiple times over the time period that is equivalent to applicant’s “frame,” which is slightly different. In applicant’s application a frame begins when the control signal is asserted. As per Fig. 6B the control signal is asserted just once over the time period shown in Fig. 7.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Ju the elements taught by Jung.
The rationale is as follows:
Ju and Jung are directed to the same field of art.
Jung discloses this prevents “a luminance deviation” (column 10, lines 20-25). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding (B):
Jo discloses:
a third initialization section in which the second power changes from a high level to the low level, and the third power changes from a high level to a low level and back to the high level (shown in Fig. 30 between “Programming” and “Emission.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Ju in view of Jung the elements taught by Jo.
The rationale is as follows:
Ju, Jung, and Jo are all directed to the same field of art.
Jo discloses this can eliminate display problems (paragraph 200). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Ju, etc., discloses:
as the image refresh rate is reduced, the number of times the second power is changed to the low level is increased (this follows from the discussion in Jung column 9, line 60 to column 10, line 15: here Jung only compares 60 HZ to 1 Hz, but, e.g., 30 Hz will have half as many periods with the control signal masked and so it will change 30 times in a frame by applicant’s definition).
Regarding claim 3:
Ju, etc., discloses:
wherein, in response to the number of times the second power is changed to the low level during the one frame period increases, a low level voltage of the second power is gradually reduced (this is part of the teaching of Jung, as follows from Fig. 7: each time it is changed in a frame it is reduced, so the more times this happens the lower it will get).
Regarding claim 4:
Ju, etc., discloses a display device as discussed above.
Ju, etc., does not disclose:
“wherein, in response to the number of times the second power is changed to the low level during the one frame period increases, a low level voltage of the second power is gradually increased.”
However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed.
The rationale is as follows:
Whether the power needs to be reduced or increased depends on the properties of the driving transistor. Jung merely states this voltage needs to be “adjusted” (column 11, line 5-20) and provides a single example where it had to be reduced. But one of ordinary skill in the art could easily chose an appropriate adjustment based on the properties of the driving transistor being used.
This appropriate level can easily be determined in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation. Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the relationships set forth in this claim are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 8:
Ju, etc., discloses:
wherein the one frame period includes at least one control period in response to a frequency of the image refresh rate, wherein the at least one control period comprises: a second non-emission section in which the pixels do not emit light; and a second emission section in which the pixels simultaneously emit light (as discussed earlier with respect to Jung column 9 line 60 to column 10, line 15).
Regarding claim 9:
Ju, etc., discloses:
wherein, when the image refresh rate is reduced, a number of control periods included in the one frame period is increased (as discussed earlier follows from the discussion in Jung column 9 line 60 to column 10, line 15).
Regarding claim 11:
Ju, etc., discloses:
wherein each of the pixels comprises:
the light emitting element connected between a second node and the second power line (Ju Fig. 1: OLED; the second node is A); tje driving transistor connected between the first power line and the second node, and including a gate electrode connected to a first node (Ju Fig. 1: T1; the first node is M); a second capacitor connected between the third power line and the first node (Ju Fig. 1: Cst); a second transistor connected between the first node and the second node, and including a gate electrode connected to an i-th scan line (where is a natural number) (Ju Fig. 1: T2); a third transistor connected between a third node and the second node, and including a gate electrode connected to the common control line (Ju Fig. 1: T3); and a first capacitor connected between the third node and a j-th scan line (where j is a natural number) (Ju Fig. 1: Cpr).
Regarding claim 12:
Ju, etc., discloses:
A method of driving a display device in which pixels are driven during one frame period using a voltage level of a second power supplied to a cathode electrode of a light emitting element included in each of the pixels (as per Ju Fig. 2, where in Ju the second voltage is ELVSS), the method comprising:
writing a voltage of a data signal in each of the pixels during a first non-emission section of a display scan period of the one frame period (this is “Programming” in Ju Fig. 2), the one frame period corresponding to a period between two consecutive common control signals (as taught in Jung the control signal is masked and so this programming phase only occurs once), and-simultaneously emitting light from the pixels during a first emission section of the one frame period (this is “emission” in Ju Fig. 2); and
maintaining the voltage of the data signal supplied in a preceding period during the first non-emission section of the display scan period in at least one second non- emission section of corresponding to at least one control period of a blank period of the one frame period that occurs after the display scan period (taught by Ju as discussed above), and
simultaneously emitting light from the pixels during at least one second emission section of the blank period of the one frame period that occurs alternately with the at least one control period (taught by Jung: in Jung the pattern shown in Fig. 5 repeats over and over, as shown in, e.g., Fig. 9, and every time P3 in Fig. 5 repeats emission occurs, as per column 10, lines 50+: “the pixel may emit the light in the second through sixtieth frame periods based on the data signal charged in the first frame period” Remember that what Jung calls a frame is a little different than applicant, but the operation is the same),
wherein the at least one control period includes a first initialization section in which a driving transistor is initialized, and a second initialization section in which the second power changes from a voltage of a higher level to the voltage of a low level and a third power supplied to a third power lines changes from a voltage of a high level to the voltage of a low level and back to the high level (taught by Jo as discussed above).
Regarding claims 13-16 and 19-20:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 and 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Note that applicant filed an amendment to the claims on 19 November 2025 and filed arguments based on this amendment. This amendment was not entered as this case was after final, and so any arguments based on the amendment were not considered.
Applicant has now filed an RCE. With it they filed claims that appear to be nearly identical to the proposed amendment filed 19 November 2025. Because the prior amendment was not entered applicant did not format these new claims properly. They do not clearly indicate the differences from the last entered amendment. Nonetheless, in the interest of compact prosecution they have been examined.
Applicant did not repeat the arguments from 19 November 2025 but because the new claims appear nearly identical to those these arguments will now be responded to.
The first argument (pages 9-10) was addressed in the Advisory Action mailed 26 November 2025. Briefly, applicant argues that Jo doesn’t suggest changing the initialization voltage to high then low than back to high prior to the emission period. But it does. The OLED doesn’t actually emit light unless Vint is high (paragraph 75). As seen in Fig. 30, this voltage is high, then low, then back to high.
Applicant’s next argument (starting the bottom of page 10) is directed to the common control signals. Basically this argument is that the claim requires that the number of times the second power is changed between common control signals is a higher value when the image refresh rate is lower.
Applicant first argues that Jung does not disclose this. Applicant argues that there are control signals STV but Jung does not show that the number of times the second power changes between them changes. But this follows from the combination.
Part of the confusion here may be that the terminology that Jung uses for the power at the cathode of the OLED is a little different than Ju. Ju (see Fig. 1) calls the second power ELVSS and it is connected to the cathode of the OLED as seen in the figure. In Fig. 2 of Ju it can be seen that ELVSS goes high or low during different stages of the frame.
Jung also changes this power at the cathode of the OLED but Jung does not call it ELVSS when it changes. As seen in Jung’s Fig. 2, when this power is low Jung calls it ELVSS and when it is high it calls it ELVDD. It’s depicted as a switch there in the figure between these two levels. So ELVSS does not change in Jung in the claimed way, but the equivalent voltage to Ju’s ELVSS – the voltage at the cathode of the OLED – does change that way. This is shown in Fig. 5, where the voltage at the cathode is called ELVc. This equivalent to Ju’s ELVSS. As can be seen in a frame this goes up and down.
In column 9, lines 50 to column 10 lines 25 Jung explains this, and says “Each of the frame periods, e.g., the first through sixtieth frame periods, may include the first period P1/P3 in which the second voltage ELVSS is provided to the second power terminal and the second period P2 in which the first voltage ELVDD is provided to the second power terminal.” So in every one of these 60 frames this voltage changes. Now, it says that in power saving mode it might mask the scan scan start signal, but it still emits the light in these sixty frame periods. It can’t emit the light unless this cathode voltage changes. So it is still changing it. This is perhaps most clearly shown in Fig. 7 where the voltage EVLc, again, corresponds to the second power of the claim.
So the combination does show this claimed language. Both Jung and Ju change that cathode voltage in a frame and in Jung it changes multiple times between control signals as in Fig. 7.
Applicant next (page 15) argues with respect to claim 12,. This is basically the same language as in the earlier claim and it is no more persuasive here.
Then applicant (page 19) applicant argues with respect to the initialization voltage. The argument here is that Jo does not teach a third initialization section in which the second power changes from a high level to the low level, and the third power changes from a high level to a low level and back to a high level. But this is exactly what is shown in Fig. 30 of Jo.
In their arguments filed 17 December 2025, applicant’s only new argument is that claim 19 now recites a first emission section in which the pixels simultaneously emit light. But this is what Jo is showing in Fig. 30. The pixels emit light in the emission period, but really only after Vint goes back high. So there is a period (unlabeled as a separate period in the figure) where the second power (ELVSS) goes from high to low and the third power (Vinit) goes high then low then back to high. This appears to meet the claim language.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note that although the ground of rejection was not changed, the amendment did require further consideration and indicated in the advisory action, and so this action is non-final.
Conclusion
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