Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/422,952

DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DRIVING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 25, 2024
Examiner
MATTHEWS, ANDRE L
Art Unit
2621
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., LTD.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
307 granted / 503 resolved
-1.0% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
539
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
68.7%
+28.7% vs TC avg
§102
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
§112
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 503 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claims 15, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2010/0013867) in view of Byun (US 2020/0143751), Kato (US 2020/0279528) and Kohashikawa (US 2014/0340437). Regarding claims 15 and 22, Kim teaches A display device comprising: a display panel including pixels (Fig. 2); a power voltage generator which provides a power voltage to the display panel (Fig. 2 power supply 90); a power current sensor which senses a power current of the display panel and generates a power current code by performing analog-to-digital conversion on the sensed power current (Fig. 4 [0045-0046] power control unit 100 sensing current and converts it to ADC), Although Kim teaches the limitations as discussed above and Kim teaches determining the ADC conversion time, Kim fails to teach the timing controller decreases the power voltage when a current value corresponding to the power current code exceeds a current limit determines the current limit based on a full white luminance. However in the field of adjusting luminance for a display device, Byun wherein the timing controller decreases the power voltage when a current value corresponding to the power current code (ADC output of sensed data) exceeds a current limit ([0011][0068-0069][0086] determines the current limit based on a full white luminance (Fig. 6 shows example of peak luminance curve where the PLC is based on white luminance being at 100% [0085]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Kim with the sensing and compensation method as taught by Byun. This combination would provide an improved power conservation method to extend the life of a display device. Although the combination teaches the limitations as discussed above, they fail to teach wherein the current limit is gradually decreased as the full white luminance decreases, wherein the full white luminance is a luminance when the display panel displays a full white image. However in the field of adjusting luminance to control power output Kato teaches a system wherein the current limit is gradually decreased as the full white luminance decreases, wherein the full white luminance is a luminance when the display panel displays a full white image (Fig. 11-Fig. 12 and the respective description teach that at point T12 a white luminance above the current upper limit value of 1.2A and between the current limit maximum of 2.2A. It goes on to teach at T13 a luminance value is reduced from the value of T12 to the value of T13. It is understood that as the luminance reduces from T12 to T13-T14 also reduces the output current limit down to upper current limit of 1.2A at T13-T14 from any value above upper current limit 1.2A at T12) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Kim with the sensing and compensation method as taught by Byun and the luminance adjustment method as taught by Kato. This combination would provide an improved power conservation method to extend the life of a display device. Although the combination teach the limitations as discussed above, and it is well known that the peak white luminance is different from a white luminance the combination does not explicitly teach the limitations. However in the field of adjusting the luminance output, Kohashikawa teaches a full white luminance is a luminance when the display panel displays a full white image (white Fig. 3, 7, and 11), wherein the peak white luminance is a maximum luminance (maximum luminance) of the display panel, and wherein the full white luminance is different from the peak white luminance ([0039-0042][0056-0064). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Kim with the sensing and compensation method as taught by Byun and the luminance adjustment method as taught by Kato and the luminance adjustment method as taught by Kohashikawa. This combination would provide an improved power conservation method to extend the life of a display device. Regarding claim 17, Byun teaches wherein the timing controller determines the full white luminance based on a preset gain setting value (Fig. 6 [0071] lookup table stores compensation values (gain values) [0083]-[0086] teaches a temporal peak luminance control, where a first gain value lower luminance of the sub pixels of a still image and the second gain lowers peak luminance of all other pixels to a reference point. Therefore it is obvious that full luminance is determined in accordance to the gain value to be applied.). Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2010/0013867) in view of Byun (US 2020/0143751), Kato (US 2020/0279528), Kohashikawa (US 2014/0340437)and Oh (US 2014/0104258) . Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Byun teach the limitations as discussed above, and Byun teaches lookup tables comprising a gain for full white luminance but fail to teach wherein the timing controller determines the current limit by using a current limit lookup table including the current limit corresponding to the luminance values. However in the field of diving a display device, Oh teaches the timing controller determines the current limit by using a current limit lookup table including the current limit corresponding to the luminance([0082]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Kim with the sensing, compensation method as taught by Byun, the luminance adjustment method as taught by Kato and the luminance adjustment method as taught by Kohashikawa, and the storage method as taught by Oh. This combination would provide an improved power conservation method to extend the life of a display device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 4-14, 19-21 and 24-25 are allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE L MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00. 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. /ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 25, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 25, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 23, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 23, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592187
Zonal Attenuation Compensation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586494
COLOR CALIBRATION SYSTEM AND COLOR CALIBRATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575301
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567349
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12546652
LIGHT DETECTION MODULE, LIGHT DETECTION METHOD AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+30.0%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 503 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month