Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/749,682

DISPLAY DRIVING DEVICE AND DISPLAY DRIVING METHOD

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jun 21, 2024
Examiner
BUTCHER, BRIAN M
Art Unit
2627
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Auo Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
644 granted / 832 resolved
+15.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
858
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 832 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Notice of 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 § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng (China Patent Document CN 114882829 A, please see original document provided for Figure references and English translation of the original document provided for Page and Line references), hereinafter referenced as Zeng. Regarding Claim 1, Zeng discloses “A display driving device, comprising: a panel” (Figures 3, 4, and Page 5, Lines 33 – 35 (Notice that a device with scan lines 41 and data lines 51 that drives a display panel is shown in Figure 3.)), “comprising: an output region, configured to output a detection signal” (Figures 3, 4, and 6 (Notice that scan lines 41 (411, 412, and 413) become output electrodes TX (TX1, TX2, TX2) that create an output region that outputs a detection signal shown in Figure 6 for touch periods 102.)), “a first region; a second region; and a third region, wherein the first region overlaps the output region, wherein the second region overlaps the output region, and wherein the third region overlaps the output region” (Figure 4 and 6 (Notice that receiving electrodes RX provide a first region of RX1, a second region of RX2, and a third region of RX3, where each region of RX1, RX2, and RX3 overlap the output region created by TX1, TX2, and TX3.)), “wherein in a first period, the second region and the third region output a point report signal according the detection signal while the first region is incapable of outputting any point report signal according to the detection signal” (Figure 6 (Notice is a first period which is a composite of the first 2 leftmost touch periods 102, the second region at the crossing of TX1 (topmost TX) and right to the leftmost RX (RX2) and the third region at the crossing of TX2 and the left to the rightmost RX (RX3) output a capacitive point report signal according to TX1 and TX2 while the first region at the crossing of TX3 (bottommost TX) and leftmost RX (RX1) are incapable of outputting a point report signal according to detection signal TX1 and TX2.), “wherein in a second period, the first region and the third region output the point report signal according the detection signal while the second region is incapable of outputting any point report signal according to the detection signal” (Figure 6 (Notice that a second period which is a composite of the last 2 rightmost touch periods 102, the first region at the crossing of TX3 (bottommost TX) and leftmost RX (RX1) and the third region at the crossing of TX2 (middle) and the left to the rightmost RX (RX3) output a capacitive point report signal according to TX2 and TX3 while the second region at the crossing of TX1 (topmost TX) and right to the leftmost RX (RX2) is incapable of outputting a point report signal according to detection signal TX2 (middle) and TX3 (bottommost).)), “wherein in a third period, the first region and the second region output the point report signal according the detection signal, while the third region is incapable of outputting any point report signal according to the detection signal” (Figure 6 (Notice in a third period which is a composite of the rightmost and leftmost touch periods 102, the first region at the crossing of TX3 (bottommost TX) and leftmost RX (RX1) and the second region at the crossing of TX1 (topmost TX) and right to the leftmost RX (RX2) output a capacitive point report signal according to TX1 and TX3 while the third region at the crossing of TX2 (middle TX) and left to the rightmost RX (RX3) are incapable of outputting a point report signal according to detection signal TX1 (middle) and TX3 (bottommost).)), “and wherein the second period is later than the first period” (Figure 6 (Notice that rightmost touch period 102 of the defined second period occurs later than the rightmost touch period 102 of the defined first period.)), “and wherein the third period is later than the second period” (Figure 6 (Notice that the rightmost touch period 102 of the define third period occurs later that the leftmost touch period 102 of the defined second period.)) Regarding Claim 11, Zeng discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). Specifically, refer back the disclosure of Zeng with regard to the device of Claim 1 and notice that the device of Zeng performs the method of Claim 11. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 – 10 and 12 - 20 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 for reasoning set forth in the history of prosecution of the instant application. Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments Applicants amendments and arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered. First, the Examiner agrees that the amendments to each of Claims 1 and 11 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) rejections of Claims 1 - 20 set forth and made of record in the Office Action mailed October 21, 2025. Second, new grounds for rejections have been identified with regard to Claims 1 and 11 above in response to the amendments of Claims 1 and 11. 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 BRIAN M BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5575. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ke Xiao, can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. 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). /BRIAN M BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627 April 03, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jan 15, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 15, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 20, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604639
Display Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596440
GESTURE-CONTROLLED VIRTUAL REALITY SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592179
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592199
DRIVING CIRCUIT, DRIVING METHOD, PIXEL CIRCUIT, DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591326
Touch Sensor Integration with Enlarged Active Area Displays
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+14.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 832 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