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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (US 20080150839), in view of Pyun et al. (US 20220013049).
As to claim 1, Kawabe teaches a display device [abstract] comprising:
a display panel (organic el panel 4) [figs. 1-2 & para. 26 & 29] including a plurality of pixels (pixels 7) [figs. 1-2 & para. 29 & 26];
a data driver (output processor 3) [fig. 1 & para. 26-27 & 29] configured to apply data voltages to the plurality of pixels based on a data signal (image data) [para. 26-27];
a sensing driver (current measuring section 5) [figs. 1 & 4 & para. 37 & 54-56] configured to receive sensing current from at least one pixel of the plurality of pixels and to output sensing data based on the sensing current [figs. 1 & 4 & para. 37 & 54-56];
a memory circuit (reference current data storing section 22) [fig. 4 & para. 54-57] configured to store the sensing data as stored sensing data; and
a driving controller (supply controller 20) [figs. 1 & 4 & para. 54-56 & 38] configured to output the data signal to the data driver and to store the sensing data received from the sensing driver to the memory circuit,
wherein the driving controller is configured to determine a difference between the stored sensing data and the sensing data by comparing the stored sensing data with the sensing data (pixel current data storing section 23 & reference current data storing section 22 are compared via comparator 24) [fig. 4 & para. 54-57 & 41], and
wherein the non-volatile memory circuit is configured to store the stored sensing data which is the same as the sensing data as stored compensation data [fig. 4 & para. 54-57].
Kawabe does not explicitly teach wherein the memory circuit is a non-volatile memory circuit.
Pyun teaches the concept of a display device [abstract & fig. 1], that utilizes a non-volatile memory circuit configured to store sensing data as stored sensing data [para. 60].
Because Kawabe and Pyun are in the same field of endeavor, i.e., aging of OLED display device, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the memory circuit of the display device of Kawabe, with a non-volatile memory circuit, as taught by Pyun, for the purposes of achieving the predictable result of storing sensed data.
As to claim 2, Kawabe as modified by Pyun teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the driving controller compares the stored sensing data with the sensing data by determining whether values obtained by subtracting the sensing data from the stored sensing data are 0 (when no more differences occur) [Kawabe: para. 41].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
Claims 3-9 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or suggest, “storing the sensing data as dummy sensing data in a dummy storage circuit;
comparing the dummy sensing data with the stored sensing data;
performing a deleting operation of the stored sensing data, a storing operation of a fail signal, and an outputting operation of an error signal when the dummy sensing data are inconsistent with the stored sensing data; and
storing the stored sensing data as stored compensation data in the non-volatile memory circuit when the dummy sensing data and the stored sensing data are same,
wherein comparison between the stored sensing data and the dummy sensing data is performed by determining whether values obtained by subtracting the sensing data from the stored sensing data are 0”, as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID TUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 10:00AM - 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, 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.
/DAVID TUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights