Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/016,919

DEVICE AND METHOD FOR IMPROVED LED DRIVING

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 10, 2025
Examiner
NGUYEN, KEVIN M
Art Unit
2628
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
760 granted / 966 resolved
+16.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
989
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.8%
+4.8% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 966 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
Response to Amendment The specification and the claim amendments filed 01/22/2026 were received and have been entered. Claim 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain present in this application. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 5 illustrated in figure 14 covers claims 1-10 and 12-20 in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant's election Species 5 illustrated in Fig. 14 was different from the identified embodiments by the applicant in the interview of record filed 9/9/2025, in particular, the applicant identified claim 1 illustrated in figure 14, claim 9 illustrated in figure 13, and claim 15 illustrated in figure 16. The Examiner asks the Applicant's agent how the elected species is different from the interview of record. Priority This Application is a continuation of Application No. 18/306,690, which is a continuation of Application No. 17/204,803, which is a continuation of Application No. 16/678,203, which is a continuation of Application No. 16/425,604, which is a continuation of Application No. 15/298,085. Therefore, there are new subject matters below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 3 and 9-20 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. Regarding claim 3, recited limitation “the second terminal of the drive transistor is a drain terminal” as being new subject matter. The specification does not provide specific definitions of “the second terminal of the drive transistor is a drain terminal” that preclude the examiner's interpretation of this limitation. The examiner is respectfully requesting how the original disclosure and the drawing describe the new subject matter. Based on the elected Figure 14, regarding claim 9, limitations are mapping as follows: a display pixel (40), a light-emitting diode (54); a drive transistor (100) coupled in series with the light-emitting diode (54); a first emission transistor (98) coupled in series with the drive transistor (100); a second emission transistor (102) coupled in series with the drive transistor (100); a first switching transistor (50) coupled between a first voltage line (108) and a first terminal of the drive transistor (100); a second switching transistor (110) coupled to a second terminal of the drive transistor (100). However, regarding claim 9, two last lines recited limitation “a third switching coupled between a second voltage line and an anode of the light emitting diode” as being new subject matter. The specification does not provide specific definitions of “a third switching coupled between a second voltage line and an anode of the light emitting diode” that preclude the examiner's interpretation of this limitation. The claimed limitation was not found in the elected Figure 14. The examiner is respectfully requesting how the original disclosure and the drawing describe the new subject matter. The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim. PNG media_image1.png 638 552 media_image1.png Greyscale Based on the elected Figure 14 above, regarding claim 15, limitations are mapping as follows: a display pixel (40), a light-emitting diode (54); a drive transistor (100) coupled in series with the light-emitting diode (54); a first emission transistor (98) coupled in series with the drive transistor (100); a second emission transistor (102) coupled in series with the drive transistor (100); a first switching transistor (110) coupled to a first node that is interposed between the drive transistor (100) and the first emission transistor (98); a second switching transistor (50) coupled to a terminal of the drive transistor (50). However, regarding claim 15, three last lines recited limitation “a third switching transistor coupled to a second node that is interposed between the drive transistor and the anode of the light-emitting diode” as being new subject matter. The specification does not provide specific definitions of “a third switching transistor coupled to a second node that is interposed between the drive transistor and the anode of the light-emitting diode” that preclude the examiner's interpretation of this limitation. The claimed limitation was not found in the elected Figure 14. The examiner is respectfully requesting how the original disclosure and the drawing describe the new subject matter. The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2016/0055792) cited in the IDS. Regarding claim 1, Figure 1 of Lee reads on claim 1 as following: a display pixel (10), a light-emitting diode (OLED); a drive transistor (TR1) coupled in series with the light-emitting diode (OLED); a first emission transistor (TR5) coupled in series with the drive transistor (TR1); a second emission transistor (TR6) coupled in series with the drive transistor (TR1); PNG media_image2.png 484 432 media_image2.png Greyscale a first switching transistor (TR4) coupled between a first voltage line (VINT) and a first terminal of the drive transistor (TR1); a second switching transistor (TR7) coupled between the first voltage line (VINT) and an anode of the light-emitting diode (OLED); and a third switching transistor (TR2) coupled between a second voltage line (DATA) and a second terminal of the drive transistor (TR1). As to claim 2, Lee teaches the display pixel of claim 1, wherein a first gate terminal of the first switching transistor (TR4) receives a first control signal (GI) and a second gate terminal of the second switching transistor (TR7) receives a second control signal (GB) different than the first control signal (GI). As to claim 3, Lee teaches the display pixel of claim 1, wherein the second terminal of the drive transistor (the TR1) is a drain terminal. As to claim 4, Lee teaches the display pixel of claim 1, wherein the second voltage line is a data line (DATA line, see Fig 1). 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. Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kumeta et al. US 2015/0002558. As to claims 5-8, Lee fails to teach the drive transistor is a silicon transistor, the first and second emission transistors are silicon transistors, the first and third switching transistors are silicon transistors, the first and third switching transistors are p-type transistors. Kumeta teaches the pixel circuit is applicable to a display device formed of amorphous silicon transistors or oxide semiconductor transistors. All transistors are p-type transistors. See ¶121-¶122. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), to implement the pixel circuit is applicable to a display device formed of amorphous silicon transistors and p-type transistors, as Kumeta teaches, to modify the display pixel of Lee. The motivation for doing so would improve the high quality of the image being displayed, while maintaining the brightness of each pixel. Kumeta ¶ 5. Conclusion 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Nguyen whose telephone is 571-272-7697. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm Eastern Time. 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, Nitin Patel can be reached on 571-272-7677. 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. KEVIN M NGUYEN Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628 /Kevin M Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628 Telephone: (571) 272-7697 Email: kevin.nguyen2@uspto.gov
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 10, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 09, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 06, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596436
TACTILE PRESENTATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588337
DISPLAY DEVICE AND TILED DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588401
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586543
METHODS AND CIRCUITS FOR DIODE-BASED DISPLAY BACKPLANES AND ELECTRONIC DISPLAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586539
DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+4.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 966 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month