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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 1-12 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.
At least claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8 each recites the limitation “the sensing unit.” 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, “a sensing unit” (claim 1, line 4) and/or sensing unit” (claim 1, line 5).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Li et al (US 2017/0193906 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al (US 2017/0193906 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al (US 2017/0193906 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 2017/0154577 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel [e.g., Fig. 8: 800] comprising a plurality of blocks [e.g., Fig. 8: 100],
wherein each of the blocks comprises a plurality of sub-pixels [e.g., Fig. 4: OLED in 120_1, 120_2, 120_3]; and
a sensing unit connected to a first block [e.g., Fig. 8: 1st 100] among the blocks via a sensing line [e.g., Fig. 4: line between T6 and T7], wherein sensing unit comprises a sensing capacitor [e.g., Fig. 4: C],
wherein the sensing line comprises
a first sub-sensing line [e.g., Fig. 4: line between T6 and T7 in 120_1, or line between T8 and OLED in 120_1] connected to sub-pixels [e.g., Fig. 4: OLED in 120_1] which emit light in a first color [e.g., Paragraph 33: red] among sub-pixels included in the first block and
a second sub-sensing line [e.g., Fig. 4: line between T6 and T7 in 120_2, or line between T8 and OLED in 120_2] connected to sub-pixels [e.g., Fig. 4: OLED in 120_2] which emit light in a second color [e.g., Paragraph 33: green] different from the first color among the sub-pixels included in the first block,
the sensing unit further comprises:
a first initialization switch [e.g., Fig. 4: T6 in 120_1, or T8 in 120_1] connected between a first initialization voltage node [e.g., Fig. 4: T1 drain], to which a first initialization voltage [e.g., Fig. 7: Vdata_R] is applied, and the first sub-sensing line; and
a second initialization switch [e.g., Fig. 4: T6 in 120_2, or T8 in 120_2] connected between a second initialization voltage node [e.g., Fig. 4: T2 drain], to which a second initialization voltage [e.g., Fig. 7: Vdata_G] is applied, and the second sub-sensing line, and
the first initialization voltage and the second initialization voltage are different from each other (e.g., see Paragraphs 33-74).
Should it be shown Li discloses the first initialization voltage and the second initialization voltage are different from each other, as instantly claimed, with insufficient specificity:
Firstly, there are only two options: The first initialization voltage and the second initialization voltage are different from each other, or they’re the same as each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (i.e., making the first initialization voltage and the second initialization voltage different from each other, or the same as each other). If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Secondly, Lee discloses a first initialization voltage [e.g., Fig. 11: cV; Paragraph 83: the third charging voltage cV may be used for a red organic light emitting diode] and the second initialization voltage [e.g., Fig. 11: bV; Paragraph 83: the second charging voltage bV may be used for a green organic light emitting diode] are different from each other (e.g., see Paragraphs 77-91).
Li and Lee are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of light emitting diode display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Lee’s different initialization voltages with Li’s first and second initialization switches [e.g., Fig. 4: T8 in 120_1 and 120_2], so that sensing accuracy improves and a short sensing time is beneficial.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Lee’s different initialization voltages with Li’s initialization switches as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the sensing line further comprises a third sub-sensing line [e.g., Fig. 4: line between T6 and T7 in 120_3, or line between T8 and OLED in 120_3] connected to sub-pixels which emit light in a third color [e.g., Paragraph 33: blue] different from the first color and the second color among the sub-pixels included in the first block,
the sensing unit further comprises a third initialization switch [e.g., Fig. 4: T6 in 120_3, or T8 in 120_3] connected between a third initialization voltage node [e.g., Fig. 4: T3 drain], to which a third initialization voltage [e.g., Fig. 7: Vdata_B] is applied, and the third sub-sensing line, and
the first initialization voltage, the second initialization voltage, and the third initialization voltage are different from each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (i.e., making the first, second and third initialization voltages different from each other, or the same as each other). If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Lee discloses the first initialization voltage, the second initialization voltage, and a third initialization voltage [e.g., Fig. 11: aV; Paragraph 83: the first charging voltage aV may be used for a blue organic light emitting diode] are different from each other.
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the first to third initialization switches are turned on in response to a voltage application signal [e.g., Figs. 4: G1 or G2] applied thereto during an active interval [e.g., Figs. 5-7: G1 or G2 high] of a frame (e.g., see Paragraphs 46-71).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the sensing unit further comprises:
a first selection switch [e.g., Fig. 4: T1] connected between the first sub-sensing line and a sensing node [e.g., Fig. 4: node between T4 & T5, or SENS, or DAT],
wherein the first selection switch is turned on in response to a first selection signal [e.g., Figs. 5-7: CLK_R high];
a second selection switch [e.g., Fig. 4: T2] connected between the second sub-sensing line and the sensing node,
wherein the second selection switch is turned on in response to a second selection signal [e.g., Figs. 5-7: CLK_G high]; and
a third selection switch [e.g., Fig. 4: T3] connected between the third sub-sensing line and the sensing node,
wherein the third selection switch is turned on in response to a third selection signal [e.g., Figs. 5-7: CLK_B high], and
the first to third selection signals are applied during a blank interval [e.g., Figs. 5-7: CLK_RGB high] after the active interval (e.g., see Fig. 7; Paragraphs 46-71).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al (US 2017/0193906 A1) in view of Yu et al (US 2015/0379909 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al (US 2017/0193906 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yu et al (US 2015/0379909 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al (US 2017/0193906 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 2017/0154577 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yu et al (US 2015/0379909 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Li and Lee don’t appear to expressly disclose a ground power supply, as instantly claimed.
However, Yu discloses the sensing unit further comprises:
a reset switch [e.g., Fig. 7: RST] connected between the sensing node [e.g., Fig. 7: CH_E or CH_O] and a ground power supply [e.g., Fig. 7: GND],
wherein the reset switch is turned on in response to a reset signal [e.g., Fig. 10: RST high]; and
the sensing capacitor connected between the sensing node and the ground power supply (e.g., see Fig. 7; Paragraphs 48-126).
Li, Lee and Yu are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of light emitting diode display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Yu’s sensing unit components with Li’s (or Li’s and Lee’s) display device, so as to provide a shorter sensing time and higher sensing performance.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Yu’s sensing unit components with Li’s (or Li’s and Lee’s) display device as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses the sensing unit further comprises:
an analog front-end [e.g., Fig. 7: AMP_E or AMP_O], to which the sensing node and a driving voltage node [e.g., Fig. 7: - terminal node] are connected at an input end [e.g., Fig. 7: - terminal] thereof; and
an analog-to-digital converter [e.g., Fig. 7: ADC] which converts a voltage output from the analog front-end into a data value (e.g., see Paragraphs 49-126).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses when the first selection switch is turned on, a first driving voltage [e.g., Paragraphs 54-56: The voltage at the input terminal of the OLED device for 120_1 is transferred to the sensing terminal SENS via the turned-on eighth transistor T8, first transistor T1 and fifth transistor T5] is applied to the driving voltage node [e.g., Fig. 4: node between T4 & T5, or SENS],
when the second selection switch is turned on, a second driving voltage is applied to the driving voltage node [e.g., Paragraphs 54-56: The voltage at the input terminal of the OLED device for 120_2 is transferred to the sensing terminal SENS via the turned-on eighth transistor T8, second transistor T2 and fifth transistor T5],
when the third selection switch is turned on, a third driving voltage is applied to the driving voltage node [e.g., Paragraphs 54-56: The voltage at the input terminal of the OLED device for 120_3 is transferred to the sensing terminal SENS via the turned-on eighth transistor T8, third transistor T3 and fifth transistor T5], and the first to third driving voltages are different from each other (e.g., see Fig. 7; Paragraphs 46-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (i.e., making the first, second and third driving voltages different from each other, or the same as each other). If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 8, Yu discloses the blank interval comprises
a first interval [e.g., Paragraph 7: 1st video frame], a second interval [e.g., Paragraph 7: 2nd video frame], and a third interval [e.g., Paragraph 7: 3rd video frame],
during the first interval, a data signal [e.g., Paragraph 49: data voltage] corresponding to pattern data [e.g., Fig. 4: RGB] is applied to sub-pixels included in a target sub-pixel row [e.g., Fig. 4: row of P] including a target sub-pixel,
during the second interval after the first interval, the target sub-pixel generates a driving current based on the pattern data, and the sensing unit generates sensing data based on the driving current [e.g., Paragraph 49: current data is sensed from the pixels of a display panel],
during the third interval after the second interval, data signals [e.g., Paragraph 49: data voltage] corresponding to image data [e.g., Fig. 4: RGB] included in an active interval of a current frame [e.g., Paragraph 7: 3rd video frame] are applied to the sub-pixels included in the target sub-pixel row, and
the target sub-pixel generates the driving current based on a data signal [e.g., Paragraph 49: data voltage] corresponding to data having a grey gradation [e.g., Paragraph 7: grayscale of video data] in the pattern data (e.g., see Paragraphs 49-126).
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses the sensing data includes electrical characteristics of the target sub-pixel (e.g., see Paragraph 127).
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses, in one frame, the target sub-pixel of each of the blocks is disposed in a different sub-pixel column [e.g., Fig. 4: different columns of P] (e.g., see Paragraphs 66-80).
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses the pattern data comprises a plurality of sub-data [e.g., Fig. 4: RGB] applied to the target sub-pixel row,
each of the sub-data comprises first data having a black gradation and second data having the grey gradation (e.g., see Paragraph 79),
the first data is applied to sub-pixels other than the target sub-pixel among the sub-pixels included in the target sub-pixel row, and the second data is applied to the target sub-pixel among the sub-pixels included in the target sub-pixel row (e.g., see Paragraphs 74-79, 106-107).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses the first to third selection signals are applied during the second interval [e.g., Figs. 5-7: CLK_RGB high] (e.g., see Fig. 7; Paragraphs 46-71).
Yu discloses the reset signal is applied before [e.g., Fig. 10: when RST is high] the third interval (e.g., see Paragraphs 49-126).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species 1 and Species 3 in the reply filed on 24 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 June 2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached 'Notice of References Cited' are cited to further evidence the state of the art pertaining to display devices.
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
26 June 2026
Prosecution Insights