Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/060,187

Image Ghosting Mitigation for Always-On Display Panels When Displaying High On-Pixel Ratio Images

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Examiner
AMADIZ, RODNEY
Art Unit
2622
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Google LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
504 granted / 637 resolved
+17.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
649
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 637 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s(IDS) submitted on February 21, 2025 and June 18, 2025 have been considered by the examiner. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0133223—hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Park et al. (USPGPUB 2020/0226980—hereinafter “Park”). As to Claim 1, Kim teaches a method comprising: displaying a first on-pixel ratio (OPR) image at a low scan rate on a multi-scan-rate-capable display panel of a user equipment (Fig. 6 at 601, 603 and 613 and Pg. 4, ¶ 57, Pg. 6, ¶’s 79 and 93 and Pg. 7, ¶ 101); receiving a second OPR image, wherein the second OPR image has a ratio of on- pixels that is greater than that of the first OPR image (Fig. 6 at 601 and 603 and Pg. 4, ¶ 57 and Pg. 7, ¶ 98). Kim, however, fails to teach activating an image-ghosting-mitigation phase of the display panel for a defined time, wherein the image-ghosting-mitigation phase includes: switching the display panel to a high scan rate, the high scan rate greater than the low scan rate; displaying the second OPR image at the high scan rate on the display panel; switching the display panel to the low scan rate; and displaying the second OPR image at the low scan rate on the display panel. Examiner cites Park to teach a display device capable of activating an image-ghosting-mitigation phase of the display panel for a defined time (See Fig. 6 at Image Transition and all of Fig. 7), wherein the image-ghosting-mitigation phase includes: switching the display panel to a high scan rate, the high scan rate greater than the low scan rate (Fig. 7 at First through fourth compensation frequencies and Pg. 6, ¶’s 118-119); displaying the second OPR image at the high scan rate on the display panel (Pg. 6, ¶’s 118-119); switching the display panel to the low scan rate (Fig. 6 at 2Hz Static Image B and Pg. 6, ¶ 119); and displaying the second OPR image at the low scan rate on the display panel (Fig. 6 at 2Hz Static Image B and Pg. 6, ¶ 119). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an image-ghosting-mitigation phase, as taught by Park, in the method taught by Kim, in order to reduce power consumption and enhance the display quality (Park, Pg. 1 ¶’s 7-8). As to Claim 2, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches that the ratio of on-pixels of the first OPR image is selected from a group consisting of less than 40%, less than 30%, less than 25%, less than 20%, less than 15%, less than 10%, and less than 5% (Kim, Pg. 5, ¶ 68). As to Claim 3, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches that the ratio of on-pixels of the second OPR image is selected from a group consisting of greater than 50%, greater than 60%, greater than 70%, greater than 80%, greater than 85%, greater than 90%, and greater than 95% (Kim, Pg. 5, ¶ 65). As to Claim 4, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches that the high scan rate at least twice that of the low scan rate (Park, Pg. 6, ¶ 119; note 1Hz and 60Hz). As to Claim 5, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches that the displaying of the first OPR image at the low scan rate includes presenting one or more frames of the first OPR image at the low scan rate (Park, Fig. 5 at first box; note Static Image A and Pg. 6, ¶ 105). As to Claim 6, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches that the displaying of the second OPR image at the high scan rate includes presenting multiple frames of the second OPR image at the high scan rate (Park, Fig. 5, note boxes 2-4 at Static Image B and Fig. 7 at first four Compensation frequencies); and the displaying the second OPR image at the low scan rate includes presenting one or more frames of the second OPR image at the low scan rate (Park, Fig. 5, note last two boxes at Static Image B and Fig. 7 at last two Compensation frequencies). As to Claim 10, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches receiving an instruction to display the second OPR image or to initiate the image- ghosting-mitigation phase (Park, Fig. 8A at S20-S60 and Fig. 11 at S20-S60 and Pgs. 7-8, ¶’s 128-140); and initiating the image-ghosting-mitigation phase in response to the received instruction (Park, Fig. 8A at S20-S60 and Fig. 11 at S20-S60 and Pgs. 7-8, ¶’s 128-140). As to Claim 11, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches that the display panel operating at the low scan rate is in an Always-on Display (AoD) mode (Kim, Pg. 10, ¶ 146 and Park, Pg. 1, ¶ 4, Pg. 5, ¶ 99 and Pg. 6, ¶ 102). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-9 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Park et al. USPGPUB 2021/0312871 Choi et al. USPGPUB 2024/0096280 Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY AMADIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7762. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs; 9AM - 5PM EST. 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. /RODNEY AMADIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622 2016
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602126
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585355
AUGMENTED BOOK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585382
Multi-Host Touch Display
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578914
A PORTABLE TERMINAL THAT IS CONNECTED TO A HEADMOUNTED DISPLAY TO DISPLAY INFORMATION IN COOPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567391
AMBIENT-LIGHT DETECTION CIRCUIT AND DETECTION METHOD, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
92%
With Interview (+13.1%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 637 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