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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 February 2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6 and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to the claimed subject matter: “each set of respective programming signals is exclusively used to a program a single section.”
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what the metes, bounds, scope, and meaning of the above limitation are intended to be.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the set of respective programming signals” (line 10). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art whether the above limitation is intended to refer to the earlier recited, “set of respective programming signals” (claim 1, line 4) and/or “set of respective programming signals” (claim 1, line 9).
Claims 2 and 4 each recites the limitation “the sets of respective programming signals” (line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art whether the above limitation is intended to refer to the earlier recited, “set of respective programming signals” (claim 1, line 4) and/or “set of respective programming signals” (claim 1, line 9).
Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite, “each section of the sub-array sections has a unique set of respective programming signals, such that each set of respective programming signals is exclusively used to a program a single section.”
The above subject matter was not described in the original disclosure of the invention.
The words and concepts of “unique” and “exclusively” (as found in the claim amendment) are absent from the original disclosure of the invention.
The Applicant alleges, “Support may be found at least in Figure 4 and amended para[0015], "for each section, there is an independent set of programming signals. If the display is divided into four sections in a 2 X 2 arrangement, the sections on the right side are connected to the right programming signals 110 and 114 and the sections on the left side are connected to the left programming signals 112 and 116". As demonstrated in Figure 1, the set of programming signals 110 are exclusive to section 102; the set of programming signals 114 are exclusive to section 106; the set of programming signals 112 are exclusive to section 104; and the set of programming signals 116 are exclusive to section 108” (pages 6-7 of the 18 February 2026 Amendment).
Firstly, there is no Figure 4 in the instant application.
Secondly, no amendment to Specification Paragraph 15 has been submitted.
Thirdly, originally submitted Paragraph 15 merely states, “The array is divided into sections that can be programmed independently in one embodiment. And each section has separate written signals.”
The original disclosure of the invention doesn’t disclose the “separate written signals” are “programming signals” never mind “a unique set of respective programming signals.”
The original disclosure of the invention doesn’t disclose what the “separate written signals” are “separate” from.
A 1st section might receive a 1st signal, and a 2nd section might receive a 2nd signal. Moreover, the 1st signal and the 2nd signal might be “separate” or “independent” of each other. But there’s nothing disclosed in the original instant application preventing the 1st and 2nd signals from being shared by or common to both the 1st and 2nd sections.
The original disclosure of the invention doesn’t disclose the “each set of respective programming signals is exclusively used to a program a single section.”
Figure 1 illustrates programming signals 110, 112, 114, and 116 being provided to sections 102, 104, 106, and 108. But there is nothing illustrated in Figure 1 precluding the possibility, for example, that programming signal 110 is provided to section 102 (on the left), which then passes it onto section 104 (on the right). In fact, Figure 1 illustrates data lines 120 and 122 being only connected to sections 106 and 108. How else can section 102 receive a data signal if section 106 isn’t passing it along to section 102?
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 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 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al (US 2022/0020327 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a method to update a section of pixel arrays [e.g., Fig. 2: section of PX arrays], the method comprising:
having a pixel array [e.g., Fig. 2: PX array] divided into
sub-array sections [e.g., Fig. 2: 1st (upper, left) section = PX (SL0-2, EML1, DL1);
2nd (upper, right) section = PX (SL5-7, EML4, DLm-1);
3rd (lower, left) section = PX (SL10-12, EML7, DL2);
4th (lower, right) section = PX (SL17-19, EML10, DLm)] including
more than one row of sections [e.g., 1st top row = top horizontal area including 1st section, 2nd section; 2nd bottom row = bottom horizontal area including 3rd section, 4th section] and
more than one column of sections [e.g., Fig. 2: 1st left column = left vertical area including 1st section, 3rd section; 2nd right column = right vertical area including 2nd section, 4th section];
wherein each section of the sub-array sections has a unique set of respective programming signals [e.g., see Figs. 1, 3, 4: scan/emission signals for SL0-2, EML1 for 1st section; scan/emission signals for SL5-7, EML4 for 2nd section; scan/emission signals for SL10-12, EML7 for 3rd section; scan/emission signals for SL17-19, EML10 for 4th section; each of which is unique from the others],
such that each set of respective programming signals is exclusively used to a program a single section [e.g., see Figs. 1, 3, 4: scan/emission signals (SL0-2, EML1) programming the 1st section don’t program the other three sections; scan/emission signals (SL5-7, EML4) programming the 2nd section don’t program the other three sections; scan/emission signals (SL10-12, EML7) programming the 3rd section don’t program the other three sections; scan/emission signals (SL17-19, EML10) programming the 4th section don’t program the other three sections]; and
updating a programming data [e.g., see Figs. 2, 3: data signal for DL1 for 1st section; data signal for DLm-1 for 2nd section; data signal for DL2 for 3rd section; data signal for DLm for 4th section; each of which is independent from the others] for each section independently,
wherein data [e.g., see Figs. 2, 3: scan/emission/data signals for SL0-2, EML1, DL1 for 1st section] for updating a display [e.g., Fig. 2: DP] is indicative of at least a section [e.g., 1st section] of the sub-array sections to be updated [e.g., Fig. 6: F1-F6] with respective programming data [e.g., see Figs. 2, 3: data signal for DL1 for 1st section] and
a set of respective programming signals [e.g., Figs. 2, 3: scan/emission signals for SL0-2, EML1 for 1st section] for the at least one section of the sub-array sections are activated and
wherein the set of respective programming signals include select signals [e.g., Figs. 2, 3: scan signals for SL0-2 for 1st section] that activate a pixel [e.g., Fig. 2: PX (SL0-2, EML1, DL1), Fig. 3: PX11] for accepting the respective programming data, emission signals [e.g., see Figs. 2, 3: emission signals for EML1 for 1st section] that control an emission time [e.g., Fig. 4: time EMj low] and a frame rate [e.g., Fig. 7: 120Hz, 1Hz] of the pixel (e.g., see Paragraphs 48-178).
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses the sets of respective programming signals are arranged in rows [e.g., Fig. 2: SL] and data lines [e.g., Fig. 2: DL] are arranged in columns (e.g., see Paragraphs 54-69);
Regarding claim 3, Cho discloses sub-array sections [e.g., 2nd, 4th sections] on a right side [e.g., Fig. 2: right side of DP] are connected to right programming signals [e.g., see Figs. 1, 3, 4: scan/emission signals for SL5-7, EML4 for 2nd section; scan/emission signals for SL17-19, EML10 for 4th section] and
sub-array sections [e.g., 1st, 3rd sections] on a left side [e.g., Fig. 2: left side of DP] are connected to left programming signals [e.g., see Figs. 1, 3, 4: scan/emission signals for SL0-2, EML1 for 1st section; scan/emission signals for SL10-12, EML7 for 3rd section] for a 2 x 2 sectional arrangement (e.g., see Paragraphs 54-69).
Regarding claim 4, Cho discloses an orientation [e.g., see Figs. 1, 3, 4: orientation of scan/emission signals for SL0-2, EML1 for 1st section; orientation of scan/emission signals for SL5-7, EML4 for 2nd section; orientation of scan/emission signals for SL10-12, EML7 for 3rd section; orientation of scan/emission signals for SL17-19, EML10 for 4th section] of the sets of respective programming signals is different (e.g., see Paragraphs 70-85).
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses data signals [e.g., Fig. 3: SCj; Fig. 2: DATA; Fig. 5: ECS] include biasing conditions [e.g., Paragraph 88: when the second scan signal SCj of a low level is supplied, the third transistor T3 is turned on. The first transistor T1 is diode-connected by the turned-on third transistor T3, and is biased in a forward direction], data inputs [e.g., Paragraph 57: The data driving circuit 200 receives the data control signal DCS and the image data signal DATA from the driving controller 100] and frame rates [e.g., Paragraph 69: The light emission driving circuit EDC according to an embodiment may drive light emission lines corresponding to the first display region DA1 among the light emission lines EML1 to EMLn at a first driving frequency, and may drive light emission lines corresponding to the second display region DA2 at a second driving frequency different from the first driving frequency in response to the light emission control signal ECS].
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses each section of the sub-array sections has a different emission duty cycle [e.g., Fig. 4: EMj high/low duty cycle; Paragraph 92: the light emission driving signal EMj supplied from the light emission line EMLj during a light emission period is changed from a high level to a low level. During the light emitting period, the fifth transistor T5 and the sixth transistor T6 are turned on by the light emission driving signal EMj of a low level. Then, the driving current Id corresponding to the voltage difference between the gate voltage of the gate electrode of the first transistor T1 and the first driving voltage ELVDD is generated, and through the sixth transistor T6, the driving current Id is supplied to the light emitting diode ED such that the current Ied flows in the light emitting diode ED] for modifying brightness, power or colour of a respective section [e.g., Paragraph 4: Light with a predetermined luminance may be generated in correspondence with the amount of the current flowing through the organic light emitting diode].
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 July 2025.
Claim 9 has been amended to recite, “implementing a compensation technique on at least one of a section-level and pixel-level basis.”
The plain meaning of the phrase “one of x and y” is “one of x, and one of y.” See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Therefore, amended claim 9 encompasses non-elected Species 5.
New claim 26 recites, “the compensation technique modifies pixel performance including at least one of uniformity and reliability in response to environmental conditions including at least one of temperature and ambient light.”
The plain meaning of the phrase “one of x and y” is “one of x, and one of y.” See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Therefore, new claim 26 encompasses non-elected Species 7-8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 18 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends, “Paragraph 15 of the specification has been amended to correct typographical errors.” (see Page 5 of the Response filed on 18 February 2026). However, the Office respectfully disagrees.
The specification hasn’t been amended.
The Applicant contends, “each section (1ˢᵗ, 2ⁿᵈ, 3ʳᵈ, or 4th) shares at least one programming signal with another section. For example, both section 1 second 2 are associated with programming signals SL1 and SL2, and both section 3 and second 4 are associated with programming signals SLn-1 and SLn. Accordingly, each section of Cho does not have "a unique set of respective programming signals, such that each set of respective programming signals is exclusively used to program a single section" as cited in claim 1” (see Page 7 of the Response filed on 18 February 2026). However, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Cho discloses a pixel array [e.g., Fig. 2: PX array] divided into
sub-array sections [e.g., Fig. 2: 1st (upper, left) section = PX (SL0-2, EML1, DL1);
2nd (upper, right) section = PX (SL5-7, EML4, DLm-1);
3rd (lower, left) section = PX (SL10-12, EML7, DL2);
4th (lower, right) section = PX (SL17-19, EML10, DLm)] including
more than one row of sections [e.g., 1st top row = top horizontal area including 1st section, 2nd section; 2nd bottom row = bottom horizontal area including 3rd section, 4th section] and
more than one column of sections [e.g., Fig. 2: 1st left column = left vertical area including 1st section, 3rd section; 2nd right column = right vertical area including 2nd section, 4th section];
wherein each section of the sub-array sections has a unique set of respective programming signals [e.g., see Figs. 1, 3, 4: scan/emission signals for SL0-2, EML1 for 1st section; scan/emission signals for SL5-7, EML4 for 2nd section; scan/emission signals for SL10-12, EML7 for 3rd section; scan/emission signals for SL17-19, EML10 for 4th section; each of which is unique from the others],
such that each set of respective programming signals is exclusively used to a program a single section [e.g., see Figs. 1, 3, 4: scan/emission signals (SL0-2, EML1) programming the 1st section don’t program the other three sections; scan/emission signals (SL5-7, EML4) programming the 2nd section don’t program the other three sections; scan/emission signals (SL10-12, EML7) programming the 3rd section don’t program the other three sections; scan/emission signals (SL17-19, EML10) programming the 4th section don’t program the other three sections] (e.g., see Paragraphs 48-178).
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6 and 8 have been considered but are moot in view of any new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM). 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
20 March 2026