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 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 1-2, 4-5, 11-18, and 20-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
It recites “the dual-gate transistor” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation at this point in the claim. Note that the dual-gate transistor is not introduced until line 5.
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, 11-18, and 20-21:
They are dependent on claim 1.
Additionally, claim 15 recites “the temperature compensation circuit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (this was introduced in claim 11, but this claim is dependent on claim 1 – perhaps this claim was intended to be dependent on claim 11). Note it is impossible to further examine this claim on the merits because it is not clear if this is the same temperature compensation circuit of claim 11 or something different. Claims 16-17 are dependent on claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2011/0148937)
Regarding claim 1:
Park discloses:
Device for the electronic control of a LED pixel cell, created with NMOS technology (paragraph 58), comprising:
- a data signal line (Fig. 5: Data[m]), a threshold signal line configured to provide a signal to adjust the threshold voltage of the dual-gate transistor (Fig. 5: Vcom; paragraph 57: “the threshold voltage…is varied according to…Vcom”), and a selection signal line (Fig. 5: Scan[n]);
- an LED (shown in Fig. 5) electrically connected in series with a dual-gate transistor (Fig. 5: T1) and together with the latter between a first and a second potential terminal (Fig. 5: ELVDD and ELVSS);
- wherein the dual-gate transistor is arranged with its current line contacts between a terminal of the LED and one of the potential terminals (as seen in Fig. 5), and a first control gate of the dual-gate transistor is connected to the threshold line and is designed to set a threshold voltage of the dual-gate transistor (Fig. 5, as per, e.g., paragraph 57);
- a selection hold circuit having a charge storage coupled to a second control gate of the dual gate transistor and to a current line contact of the dual gate transistor (Fig. 5: Cst), and a control transistor having its control terminal connected to the select signal line (Fig. 5: T2).
Regarding claim 2:
Park discloses:
the dual gate transistor comprises a back gate transistor, in which the back gate forms the first control gate (Park doesn’t use this term, but as per paragraph 44 this is the top gate electrode, and applicant’s back gate is a top gate electrode).
Regarding claim 4:
Park discloses:
the dual-gate transistor comprises a thin-film transistor with two opposing control gates (e.g., paragraph 35 as already discussed).
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) 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Le et al. (US 2018/0075801)
Regarding claim 5:
Park discloses a device as discussed above.
Park does not disclose that the device:
“is configured in such a way that a switching signal (PWM signal) is applied to the threshold line during operation.”
Lee discloses:
a switching signal (PWM signal) is applied during operation (paragraph 29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Park wherein the device is configured in such a way that a switching signal (PWM signal) is applied to the threshold line during operation, as suggested by Le.
The rationale is as follows:
Park and Le are directed to the same field of art.
Le suggests that using a PWM signal with an OLED can reduce flicker (paragraph 31). One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this to the threshold signal, substituting a PWM signal for Park’s voltage signal, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 21:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112 rejections, applicant amended to overcome the previous rejection, but the amendment caused new 112 issues.
With respect to the double patenting rejections, applicant’s amendment has overcome this rejection.
With respect to the 102 and 103 rejections, applicant argued (page 7) argued that the threshold signal line of the claim is different than the back-gate line of Yamashita. While it is true that there are some differences in operation, the claim language does not really capture these. Applicant argues Yamashita doesn’t disclose that it adjusts the threshold voltage during active light-emitting operation, but this is not claimed. There’s nothing in the amended claim about adjusting the threshold voltage during emission. So Yamashita may still meet the amended claim language.
However, in the interest of advancing prosecution, Park has been relied upon instead of Yamashita. Park clearly discloses that this back gate is used for adjusting the threshold voltage during active light emission.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights