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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are subject to objection because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 11, in lines 8-9, the phrase “in the writing stage” is the first appearance of the term “writing stage”. It is recommended that the definite article “the” be replaced by the indefinite article “a” instead.
Regarding claim 12, in lines 4-5, the phrase “in the writing stage” is the first appearance of the term “writing stage”. It is recommended that the definite article “the” be replaced by the indefinite article “a” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 20 are rejected, claims 1 and 20 in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0335872 A1 (“Zhang”) in view of US 2024/0078948 A1 (“Zheng”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a driving method of a display panel (Abstract), wherein:
the display panel includes a plurality of light-emitting devices and a plurality of pixel circuits ([137]-[141]), a frame (Fig. 6 at frame) of the display panel including at least one subframe (Fig. 6 at light-emitting stage), and a working process of a pixel circuit of the plurality of pixel circuits in a subframe of the at least one subframe at least includes a luminescence stage (Fig. 6 at light-emitting stage);
the display panel includes a first luminance mode and a second luminance mode ([56]); and
the driving method includes:
in the first luminance mode, the frame of the display panel includes N subframes, where N is an integer, and N≥2, in the first luminance mode, a light-emitting device of the plurality of light-emitting devices is controlled to display gray levels according to an instantaneous luminance allocation rule for a subframe within the N subframes ([54]; Fig. 6),
the instantaneous luminance allocation rule for the subframe includes that a gray level of the gray levels displayed by the light-emitting device increases as an instantaneous luminance of the light-emitting device in the subframe increases ([54]), and
in the second luminance mode, the frame of the display panel includes M subframes, where M is an integer, and N≥M≥1, in the second luminance mode, a light-emitting device of the plurality of light-emitting devices is controlled to display gray levels according to the instantaneous luminance allocation rule for the subframe ([54]; Fig. 6: number of subframes between modes is equal), a maximum duration of the luminescence stage in the N subframes in the first luminance mode is t10, and t10 is greater than a maximum duration of the luminescence stage in the M subframes in the second luminance mode ([56]).
Zhang does not expressly teach when the display panel displays a same gray level, a luminance of the display panel in the first luminance mode is greater than a luminance of the display panel in the second luminance mode. However, Zheng teaches when the display panel displays a same gray level, a luminance of the display panel in the first luminance mode is greater than a luminance of the display panel in the second luminance mode ([52], [114]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Zhang by the teaching of Zheng is present as Zhang teaches modes of brightness and Zheng teaches achieving modes of brightness by changing the grayscale mapping in different modes. The motivation is to implement different modes of brightness. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches modes of brightness and Zheng teaches achieving modes of brightness by changing the grayscale mapping in different modes. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Zhang and Zheng would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, when the display panel displays a same gray level, a luminance of the display panel in the first luminance mode is greater than a luminance of the display panel in the second luminance mode.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further teaches in the first luminance mode, a duration of the luminescence stage in an N-th subframe among the N subframes sorted by duration is t10 ([56]; Fig. 6), and a duration of the luminescence stage in an (N-1)-th subframe is t11 (Fig. 6 at non-light emitting stage OR data writing stage); the second luminance mode includes a first sub-luminance mode; and in the first sub-luminance mode, where M=N, a duration of the luminescence stage in the M-th subframe among the M subframes sorted by duration is t20 ([56]; Fig. 6), and a duration of the luminescence stage in an (M-1)-th subframe is t21 (Fig. 6 at non-light emitting stage OR data writing stage), with t10>t20 ([56]) and t11≥t21 (Fig. 6: luminescence stage in the non-emitting subframes is zero).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further teaches N≥3; and a duration of the luminescence stage in an i-th subframe sorted by duration in the first luminance mode is equal to a duration of the luminescence stage in the i-th subframe sorted by duration in the first sub-luminance mode, where i is an integer, and 1≤i<N-1 (Fig. 6 at reset stage, bias adjustment stage, data writing stage: all have zero duration).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further teaches wherein the display panel includes a plurality of light-emitting control lines (Fig. 2 at EM lines), and the pixel circuit is coupled to the plurality of light-emitting control lines (Fig. 2), during the luminescence stage, the plurality of light-emitting control lines provides effective pulses ([58]-[60]), the driving method further including: in the first luminance mode, a maximum effective pulse width of the plurality light-emitting control lines providing signals in N subframes is t10, where t10 is greater than a maximum effective pulse width of the plurality of light-emitting control lines providing signals in the M subframes in the second luminance mode ([56], [58]-[60]; Figs. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang teaches a display device comprising a display panel driven by the driving method (Abstract) according to claim 1.
Claims 3, 6-14 are subject to objection 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, and if the formal objections to claims 11-12, above, are successfully addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 3 and 6-14, subject to objection as being dependent upon a rejected claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art cited to reject the aforementioned base and intervening claims does not subsequently teach or render obvious the dependent claims indicated as otherwise allowable in the full context of the claims. Nor does any observed additional prior art in combination with the cited prior art render obvious the dependent claims indicated as being allowable in the full context of the claims.
Note that in claim 6, the limitation 1<M<N is understood as further limiting the integers M and N, and does not contradict any other mathematical expressions in the chain of claims. In other words, the various expressions in the claims are understood to provide overlapping boundaries that collectively define the integers. Each individual expression is not interpreted maximally as requiring the entire range in each expression be fulfilled, but interpreted as defining boundaries for the variables involved, per the usual mathematical style of interpretation, unless the claim language otherwise indicates that the entire range is being required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have successfully addressed the rejections of claims 5-12 under 35 USC 112(b). Those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 12 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach an “instantaneous luminance allocation rule”. Remarks at 16-17. Applicant argues differences in details between Applicant’s own device and the reference. Remarks at 16-17. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitation “instantaneous luminance allocation rule” is not a term of art, and does not have the specific meaning ascribed to it by Applicant. The limitation “instantaneous luminance allocation rule” has a broadest reasonable interpretation that reads onto the teaching of Zhang. “Instantaneous luminance” merely refers to current brightness or brightness at a moment of time.
Applicant argues that the devices of Zhang and Zheng are not combinable because of technical differences between the references. Remarks at 17. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is important to perceive that the cited combination does not require the entirety of Zheng’s teaching to be combined with the entirety of Zhang’s teaching. Rather, Zheng is only cited to provide the teaching of the feature that when the display panel displays a same gray level, a luminance of the display panel in the first luminance mode is greater than a luminance of the display panel in the second luminance mode. This feature is not dependent on the specifics of Zheng’s device cited by Applicant, and is compatible with the device taught by Zhang.
Applicant argues that Zhang “does not disclose reducing luminance by reducing the number of subframes that participate in gray-level synthesis or by selectively shortening the longest luminescence stage in a manner tied to instantaneous luminance allocation”. Remarks at 18. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624