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 .
Response to Arguments
Arguments and amendments filed 6 March 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant amends independent claims to recite the first and second data repair signals to be distinct from the pixel data signal. It is the position of the Office that Woo continues to read upon this claimed subject matter, as each column of pixels receives its own, separate data signal (e.g., RDL (left pixel repair block), RDL (right pixel repair block) and DL[1, 2, 3, etc.] for the central pixels). As such, the claims, as amended, are not patentably distinct over the cited prior art. As to the 112(f) and (b), it is the position of the Office that – even with the amended claims – the generic placeholders do not recite sufficient structure. There is nothing in the claim or specification that brings clarity as to exactly what the claimed “blocks” are. Claiming the block is connected and receives a signal does not constitute sufficient structure in light of 112(f). As such, the interpretations and rejections stand.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a driving controller… configured to output”
“a first repair amplifying block … configured to apply”
“a second repair amplifying block… configured to apply”
“a data amplifying block … configured to apply”
“a location determining block … configured to determine”
“a data selecting block … configured to output”
“an offset calculating clock… configured to output”
“an amplifier compensating data outputting block… configured to output”
“a delay calculating block … configured to output”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, each of the identified claim limitations above have not been identified within the specification as to what is actually performing the claimed functionality.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 claims 1-2, 4, and 17, and in light of the claim interpretation above, the recitation of:
“a driving controller… configured to output” “a first repair amplifying block … configured to apply” “a second repair amplifying block… configured to apply” “a data amplifying block … configured to apply” “a location determining block … configured to determine” “a data selecting block … configured to output” “an offset calculating clock… configured to output” “an amplifier compensating data outputting block… configured to output” “a delay calculating block … configured to output” render claims 1-2, 4, and 17 ambiguous in light of the claim interpretation above. Each of the identified claim limitations have not been identified within the specification as to what is actually performing the claimed functionality, thus creating ambiguity within the claims. Clarification is required.
Claims 3, 5-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 112(b) based on dependency.
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 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo (US 2016.0019841).
Regarding claim 1, Woo disclose:
display apparatus comprising: a display panel including a first repair pixel block, a second repair pixel block and a plurality of pixels; a gate driver configured to output a gate signal to the display panel; a data driver configured to apply a data voltage based on a data signal to the display panel (see Fig. 1, 4-5, 8-10; [0045-0048]; display panel 140; first repair block R_Px (left column); second repair block R_Px (right column); gate driver 220 with gate signal via SL; data driver 230 with data signals via DL/R_DL)
a driving controller connected to the gate driver and the data driver, and configured to output the data signal based on input image data to the data driver, wherein the data signal output from the driving controller includes a pixel data signal, a first repair data signal and a second repair data signal, and each of the first repair data signal and the second repair data signal is a distinct data signal from the pixel data signal, and either the first repair pixel block or the second repair pixel block applies a repair driving current to at least one pixel among the plurality of pixels based on the first repair data signal or the second repair data signal, and a location of the at least one pixel (see Fig. 1, 4-5, 8-10; [0045-0048]; driving controller 240 to control 220/230 to output data signal based on input image data (e.g., how display image is determined); where repair block (via repair pixels R_Px) apply driving current to OLED of pixel D_Px based on the data signal via R_DL and location of the defective pixel; further each column of pixels receives its own, separate data signal (e.g., R_DL (left pixel repair block), R_DL (right pixel repair block) and DL[1, 2, 3, etc.] for the central pixels)).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Woo further disclose:
the first repair pixel block and the second repair pixel block are connected with each of the plurality of pixels through a repair line (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated herein. Woo further disclose:
the first repair pixel block includes a plurality of first repair pixels and the second repair pixel block includes a plurality of second repair pixels, wherein the at least one pixel includes a light emitting element, wherein a repair pixel among the plurality of first repair pixels or the plurality of second repair pixels is connected with and applies the repair driving current to the light emitting element through the repair line, and wherein the light emitting element emits light based on the repair driving current (see Fig. 1, 8; [0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated herein. Woo further disclose:
the display panel includes a gate line receiving the gate signal, a data line receiving the data voltage and the repair line, and wherein the gate line and the repair line extend in a first direction, and the data line extends in a second direction different from the first direction (see Fig. 1, 8; gate line SL in first direction; data line DL in second direction different from first direction; repair line RL in first direction).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Woo further disclose:
the first repair pixel block is located in a first side of the display panel and the second repair pixel block is located in a second side of the display panel different from the first side of the display panel (see Fig. 8).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Park (US 2017.0296398).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. While Woo at Fig. 8 provides first and second repair data voltages via first and second repair blocks vi R_DL, separate from the data voltages to the central pixels via DL, it is not explicit as to, but Park disclose:
the data driver includes: a first repair amplifying block connected to at least one of first repair pixels of the first repair pixel block, and configured to apply a first repair data voltage to the first repair pixel block; a second repair amplifying block connected to at least one of second repair pixels of the second repair pixel block, and configured to apply applying a second repair data voltage to the second repair pixel block; and a data amplifying block connected to the plurality of pixels, and configured to apply a pixel data voltage to the plurality of pixels (see Fig. 1; [0052]; where data driver 140 has first repair amplifying block RDB to supply repair data voltage via RDL to repair pixels R_Px (left column of Woo); data amplifying block DB to supply pixel data voltage to pixels PX; where a second amplifying block RDB to supply a second repair pixels R_Px (right column of Woo) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Park to that of Woo to predictably provide an output buffer from the driving circuit to provide the required data voltages to the pixels or repair pixels of the display device.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Park further disclose:
the first repair pixel block generates a first repair driving current based on the first repair data voltage, and wherein the second repair pixel block generates a second repair driving current based on the second repair data voltage (see [0052]; where first repair block driving current generated based on data voltage output from RDB; where as shown above in claim 2, a secondary repair block driving current generation would also be present in the display device of Woo as modified by Park ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12 and 17-20 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621