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, see pages 6-7, filed July 14, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. ¶ 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang et al. (see below).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (U.S. Patent 11,978,393) in view of Shin et al. (USPGPUB 2025/0081772—hereinafter “Shin”) and Zhang et al. (USPGPUB 2020/0286432—hereinafter “Zhang”).
As to Claim 1, Huang teaches a display device (Col. 2, line 37), comprising:
a display panel (Col. 2, line 37), a display area is provided with a plurality of pixels arranged in array (Col. 2, lines 37-39), a pixel of the plurality of pixels at least comprises a reset module (Fig. 1 at VRES) and a light-emitting element (Fig. 1 at LD), and the reset module is electrically connected to a first electrode of the light-emitting element (See Fig. 1 and note VRES connected to LD via G_T4 and G_T3);
wherein a first power signal is provided to a second electrode of the light-emitting element (Fig. 1 at ELVSS); and
a display driving circuit (Col. 2, lines 37-39), wherein the display driving circuit is at least configured to provide a reset signal to the reset module (Col. 3, line 59—Col. 4, line 7);
wherein a working process of the display device at least comprises a power-on stage (Col. 3, line 59—Col. 4, line 7); in the power-on stage, a difference between a voltage of the reset signal and a voltage of the first power signal is ΔVb (Col. 3, line 66—Col. 4, line 7); and
a turn-on voltage of the light-emitting element is V0, wherein |ΔVb| < V0 (Col. 3, 20250081772line 66—Col. 4, line 7).
Huang, however, fails to teach that the display panel comprises a display area and a non-display area at least partially surrounding the display area, a power management circuit disposed in the non-display area and that the display driving circuit is disposed in the non-display area. Examiner cites Shin to teach a display device (See Fig. 7) comprising a display area (DA) and a non-display area (NDA) at least partially surrounding the display area, a power management circuit disposed in the non-display area (700) and that the display driving circuit is disposed in the non-display area (101, 102, 200, 500 and 800). 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 a display area and a non-display area with the components as taught by Shin, in the electronic device taught by Huang, in order to properly define the display area and non-display area (Shin, Pg. 1, ¶ 6).
Huang also teaches that the working process of the display device further comprises a displaying stage (Fig. 2 at P2), and the power-on stage comprises a reset adjustment period (Fig. 2 at P1);
Huang, as modified by Shin, however, fails to teach that in the reset adjustment period, the voltage of the reset signal is V11; and in the displaying stage, the voltage of the reset signal is V12; and wherein V11 ≠ V12. Examiner cites Zhang to teach a display device with a reset adjustment period having a reset voltage signal of V11 (Pg. 7, ¶ 84 – reset period); and in the displaying stage, the voltage of the reset signal is V12 (Pg. 7, ¶ 84 – remaining periods); and wherein V11 ≠ V12 (Pg. 7, ¶ 84). 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 different voltages in the reset period and display period, as taught by Zhang, in the display device taught by Huang, as modified by Shin, in order to prevent leakage of electricity and save power consumption (Zhang, Pg. 7, ¶ 84).
As to Claim 12, Huang, as modified by Shin and Zhang, teaches that the display driving circuit is further configured to provide a display control signal, and start time of the reset adjustment period and end time of the reset adjustment period are determined based on time when the display control signal jumps to be a valid pulse (Zhang, Figs. 10 and 11 at t1 for reset and t4 for display control).
As to Claim 13, Huang, as modified by Shin and Zhang, teaches that the display driving circuit is electrically connected to the power management circuit (Shin, Fig. 7 at 700, 101, 102 and 200); the display driving circuit is further configured to provide a first control signal to the power management circuit (Huang, Col. 3, lines 11-39) and control start time of the reset adjustment period and end time of the reset adjustment period based on start time of enable level of the first control signal (Zhang, Pg. 7, ¶ 84); and the power management circuit is further configured to control an output of the first power signal based on the first control signal (Zhang, Figs. 10 and 11 at t1 for reset and t4 for display control).
As to Claim 14, Huang teaches that the working process of the display device further comprises a displaying stage; and in the displaying stage, a difference between the voltage of the reset signal and the voltage of the first power signal is ΔVa, wherein ΔVa| < V0 (Col. 3, line 66—Col. 4, line 7).
As to Claim 15, Huang teaches that |ΔVb| ≤ |ΔVa| (Col. 3, line 66—Col. 4, line 7).
As to Claim 16, Huang, as modified by Shin, teaches that the display driving circuit is electrically connected to the power management circuit (Shin, Fig. 7 at 700, 101, 102 and 200); and the display driving circuit is further configured to receive the first power signal output from the power management circuit and control the voltage of the reset signal based on the first power signal (Huang, Col. 3, lines 11-39).
As to Claim 17, Huang teaches that the working process of the display device further comprises a displaying stage (Col. 5, lines 48-59); the display driving circuit is further configured to provide a respective data signal for each of the plurality of pixels in the displaying stage (Col. 4, lines 18-23); and the pixel further comprises a drive module (Col. 2, lines 37-39), and the drive module is configured to selectively provide a drive current to the light-emitting element based on the respective data signal (Col. 5, lines 48-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 and 13 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.
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
