Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/672,037

DISPLAY APPARATUS, DISPLAY DRIVING DEVICE AND DRIVING METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 23, 2024
Examiner
PARK, SANGHYUK
Art Unit
2623
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Novatek Microelectronics Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
509 granted / 717 resolved
+9.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
742
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
54.1%
+14.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 717 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 . Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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, 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (PGPUB 2022/0060572 A1) in view of Whitman et al (PGPUB 2018/0088633 A1). As to claim 1, Kwon (Figs. 21A-28C) teaches, a display apparatus (display 1 and display 2)(Fig. 1A), comprising: a foldable touch display panel (¶ 101: i.e. touch screen, ¶ 3: i.e. display including touch screen, Figs. 1A, 1B: i.e. folding/opening state shown), comprising a plurality of touch sensors (¶ 256: i.e. capacitance type as touch sensor); and a display driving device (main chip)(¶ 255), coupled to the foldable touch display panel, wherein the display driving device is configured to: determine a folding angle (folding angle) of the foldable touch display panel according to a (¶ 255: i.e. folding angle is detected via sensor block and communicate with the main chip); and drive the foldable touch display panel to operate in a full panel display mode or in a partial panel display mode according to the folding angle (¶ 176-178, Figs. 23A-23F: i.e. based on the folded state, on/off state of display 1 and 2 are changed as shown in the figure). Kwon teaches capacitance type for detecting capacitance change in ¶ 256 but does not specifically teach that the folding angle is detected using the capacitance change. Whitman (Figs. 2A-2C) teaches, determine a folding angle (fold angle) of the foldable touch display panel (electronic device 100) according a capacitance variation (i.e. based on self-capacitance) of the touch sensors (active electrodes) in a folded state (¶ 26, 39, 40). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Whitman’s capacitance detection for detecting the folding angle of the touch display device, so as to accurately determine the opening state (¶ 20). As to claim 11, Kwon (Figs. 21A-28C) teaches, a driving method of a display apparatus (display 1 and display 2)(Fig. 1A), wherein the display apparatus comprises a foldable touch display panel (¶ 101: i.e. touch screen, ¶ 3: i.e. display including touch screen, Figs. 1A, 1B: i.e. folding/opening state shown), and the foldable touch display panel comprises a plurality of touch sensors (¶ 256: i.e. capacitance type as touch sensor), the driving method comprising: determining a folding angle (folding angle) of the foldable touch display panel according to (¶ 255: i.e. folding angle is detected via sensor block and communicate with the main chip); and driving the foldable touch display panel to operate in a full panel display mode or in a partial panel display mode according to the folding angle (¶ 176-178, Figs. 23A-23F: i.e. based on the folded state, on/off state of display 1 and 2 are changed as shown in the figure). Kwon teaches capacitance type for detecting capacitance change in ¶ 256 but does not specifically teach that the folding angle is detected using the capacitance change. Whitman (Figs. 2A-2C) teaches, determine a folding angle (fold angle) of the foldable touch display panel (electronic device 100) according a capacitance variation (i.e. based on self-capacitance) of the touch sensors (active electrodes) in a folded state (¶ 26, 39, 40). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Whitman’s capacitance detection for detecting the folding angle of the touch display device, so as to accurately determine the opening state (¶ 20). Dependent Claims As to claims 2 and 12, Kwon (Figs. 23A-23F, 26A-26C) teaches, wherein the display driving device is further configured to: determine whether the folding angle is larger than a first reference angle value (¶ 118, 178: i.e. angle threshold for full open state in Fig. 23F) when the folding angle is larger than the first reference angle value, drive the foldable touch display panel to operate in the partial panel display mode (Fig. 23A-E: i.e. based on the degree of open state, display 2 is partially or fully turned on/off. When angle less than 180 degrees, display 2 is partially turned on); and when the folding angle is smaller than or equal to the first reference angle value, drive the foldable touch display panel to operate in the full panel display mode (Fig. 23F: i.e. at 180 degrees, display 2 is fully turned on). As to claims 4 and 14, Kwon (Figs. 11A-11C) teaches, wherein the display driving device is further configured to: determine whether the folding angle is larger than a second reference angle value (i.e. angle for determining “folded state”, distinguishing between Fig. 23A and Fig. 23B.), wherein the second reference angle value is smaller than the first reference angle value (Figs. 23B-23E: i.e. angles in Figs. 23B-23E are less than 180 degrees of Fig. 23F); when the folding angle is larger than the second reference angle value, drive the foldable touch display panel to operate in the full panel display mode (Fig. 23F: i.e. when the angle is larger than the angles of Figs. 23B-23E, the angle can be 180 degrees as shown in Fig. 23F, which is full panel display mode for display 2); and when the folding angle is smaller than or equal to the second reference angle value, turn off a display operation of the foldable touch display panel (Fig. 23A: i.e. when the folding angle is at 0 degree, display 2 is fully turned off). As to claim 10, Kwon (Figs. 21A-28C) teaches, a display driving device (display 1 and display 2), coupled to the foldable touch display panel of claim 1, and configured to determine a folding angle (folding angle) of the foldable touch display panel according to a capacitance variation (i.e. Whitman teaches as discussed in claim 1)of the touch sensors in a folded state (Figs. 23B-23E), and drive the foldable touch display panel to operate in a full panel display mode or in a partial panel display mode according to the folding angle (Figs. 23A-23F). Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon and Whitman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al (PGPUB 2017/0102738 A1). As to claims 5 and 15, Kwon and Whitman teach the electronic device of claim 1 but do not specifically teach indication of inner fold and outer fold based on a reference angle value. Park (Fig. 14) teaches, wherein when the folding angle is larger than the first reference angle value (180o), it indicates that the foldable touch display panel is folded in a manner of outer fold (¶ 67: i.e. 180-360 degrees); and when the folding angle is smaller than or equal to the first reference angle value, it indicates that the foldable touch display panel is folded in the manner of inner fold (¶ 65: i.e. 0 to 180 degrees). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Park’s in-folding and out-folding and the method of respectively providing different operation states into Kwon’s touch display as modified with the teaching of Whitman’s touch display, so as to provide hovering functionality based on the fold angle (¶ 165). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 6, 13 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 3 and 13 Claim 3 recites the limitation, “when the one of the partial display areas is in contact with the object, drive the foldable touch display panel to operate in the partial panel display mode, wherein the one of the partial display areas is set as an inactive area; and when the one of the partial display areas is not in contact with the object, drive the foldable touch display panel to operate in the full panel display mode”. Examiner conducted a search to find the prior arts that would teach these limitations alone or in combination but could not find them. Kwon et al (PGPUB 2020/0264826 A1) – Kwon teaches locking the screen based on the folding action, which is similar to the partial display mode limitation by maintain partial display status and ignoring touch event when inactive display area is touched. However, Kwon does not specifically teach “when the one of the partial display areas is not in contact with the object, drive the foldable touch display panel to operate in the full panel display mode”. Similar discussion applies to claim 13. Claims 6 and 16 Claim 6 recites the limitation, “wherein the display driving device is further configured to: determine whether the folding angle is larger than a first reference angle value; when the folding angle is larger than the first reference angle value, select a first lookup table for image compensation from a first lookup table group; and when the folding angle is smaller than or equal to the first reference angle value, select a second lookup table for image compensation from a second lookup table group”. Examiner conducted a search to find the prior arts that would teach the limitations discussed above alone or in combination but could not find them. Similar discussion applies to claim 6. Claims 1 and 6 recite the following features together: foldable touch display panel select a first /second look up table based on the folding angle is larger or smaller than the reference angle value determine folding angle … according to a capacitance variation of the touch sensors None of the prior arts in combination teach all of the three key features of claims 1 and 6. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGHYUK PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7359. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00AM - 6:00 M-F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on ((571) 272-7772. 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. /SANGHYUK PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602134
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603055
DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING A SWEEP DRIVER THAT PROVIDES A SWEEP SIGNAL, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594141
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MEDIA FOR PRESENTING BIOPHYSICAL SIMULATIONS IN AN INTERACTIVE MIXED REALITY ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591322
TOUCH INPUT SYSTEM INCLUDING PEN AND CONTROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592207
GATE LINE DRIVING CIRCUIT WITH TOP GATE AND BOTTOM GATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+16.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 717 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month