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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 09/09/2025. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
Response to Arguments
The drawing objection in the previous Office action dated 06/09/2025 has been withdrawn as supported by Fig. 11 in light of the paragraph [0141] of the specification.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 11(b) in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims.
The first set of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US 11,996,052 B2) in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) submitted on page 8 of the amendment. The second set of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (KR 20220060133 A) in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims. The third set of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR 20200005347 A) in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and that, in operation, senses” in line 10 should be changed to -- and, in operation, sensing -- in order to clarify the claimed feature. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 and 7-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, this claim recites a limitation, “a timing controller that, in operation, detects a defect of the display panel based on comparing a sensing result of the sensing circuitry” in lines 13-14. Since it is unclear which is compared with a sensing result of the sensing circuitry, it is considered that the above underlined limitation is not clearly defined.
As per claims 2-5 and 7-12, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
In addition to claims 5 and 7-9, these claims recite the limitation "the target voltage" in line 2 of claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
As per claim 1, this claim recites a limitation, “the driving circuitry including a first transistor connected to be controlled by a scan signal” in lines 7-8, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 3, discloses a first transistor SWT connected to be controlled by a scan signal SCAN, being an element of the subpixel, and being separate from the driving circuitry 200, i.e., the first transistor SWT is not an element of the driving circuitry 200. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition, claim 1 further recites a limitation, “the sensing circuitry including a second transistor connected to be controlled by a sensing signal” in lines 5-6, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 3, discloses a second transistor SENT connected to be controlled by a sensing signal SENSE, being an element of the subpixel, and being separate from the sensing circuity 300, i.e., the second transistor SENT is not an element of the sensing circuitry 300. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 2-5 and 7-12, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claimed invention is directed to a display device and driving method thereof, capable of detecting defects such as panel burnt phenomenon within the active time of one frame during the display driving of an image and reducing the processing time of real-time sensing processes. Independent claim 13 identifies the uniquely distinct limitation, “comparing the sensing voltage with a target voltage selected based on the data voltage applied during the active time.” Independent claim 18 identifies the uniquely distinct limitations, “sensing circuitry that, in operation, generates sensing data by sampling an electrical signal on the reference voltage line during a third period in which the reference voltage line is electrically floating; a power controller that, in operation, generates a first reference voltage during the active time and generates a second reference voltage during the blank time; and a timing controller that, in operation, detects a defect of the display panel based on the sensing data.” The closest prior arts, discussed in the previous Office action dated 06/09/2025, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations in combination with all of the other claimed limitations particularly recited by these claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626