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 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, drawn to Fig. 6, in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-16 are allowable. The restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 01/06/2026 has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, claims 18-19, directed to non-elected species, are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim 20 remains withdrawn from consideration because it does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/06/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fewer than all views are “grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h).
Shading does not conform to the standards set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(m), which recites “shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. ... Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. ... Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.” See Fig. 7, for example, wherein ED appears solid black. See also Fig. 17, wherein shaded features cannot be discerned due to lack of contrast with the rest of the drawing. See also Fig. 18, wherein shading of black matrix BML is inconsistent with the unshaded appearance of BML in Fig. 17. See also Fig. 32.
Some arrowheads are so small as to be indistinct. Furthermore, the meaning of some arrows is unclear. See tiny arrows near ED in Figs. 7-14, for example.
Fewer than all lines are uniformly thick and well-defined. See Fig. 4, for example.
Some lines are indistinct because they mingle with other lines. See Va and i_ED in Fig. 15, for example. See also Fig. 16, wherein solid, dot-dash, dashed, and dash double dot lines are indistinct due to partial overlap, obfuscating which line is which.
The timing of Fig. 16 appears devoid of any delay between P7 and P8. This appears inconsistent with Fig. 6, which shows a delay between the end of P7 and the start of P8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US 20170124954 A1).
As recited in claim 1, Park et al show a display device (see Fig. 22) comprising: a first transistor T3 connected between a driving voltage line ELVDD and a second node N3; a sixth transistor T7 connected between the second node N3 and a common voltage line ELVSS; a light-emitting element OLED connected between the sixth transistor T7 and the common voltage line ELVSS; and a fourth transistor T17 connected between the second node N3 and an initialization voltage line VINIT.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2: The prior art of record neither shows nor suggests that an initialization voltage of the initialization voltage line is less than a driving voltage of the driving voltage line. Although Park et al suggest “an initialization voltage VINIT that is different from first and second power supply voltages ELVDD and ELVSS” [0156], Park et al’s specific examples ([0159] “during the initialization period TINIT, the first power supply voltage ELVDD may have a second ELVDD voltage level (e.g., about 6 V), and the initialization voltage VINIT may have the first voltage level (e.g., about 6 V) that is substantially the same as the second ELVDD voltage level”; [0160] “During the anode initialization period TINIT2 after the data writing period TWRITE, an anode of the organic light emitting diode OLED may be reinitialized by the initialization voltage VINIT having the second voltage level. For example, the second voltage level of the initialization voltage VINIT may be substantially the same as a second ELVSS voltage level (e.g., about 13 V)”) are silent regarding an initialization voltage less than a driving voltage.
Regarding claim 3 and its dependent claims: The prior art of record neither shows nor suggests a fifth transistor connected between the driving voltage line and a first node, in combination with a second transistor connected between a data line and the first node.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lim et al (US 20250118254 A1) show first transistor T1, sixth transistor T7, light-emitting element EE, and fourth transistor T5. See pixel in Fig. 13 and its timing in Fig. 14.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
05/12/2026
Prosecution Insights