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 5-6 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.
The term “adjacent” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The commonly accepted definition of “adjacent” is “lying near, close” (e.g., see Random House dictionary, Dictionary.com).
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art precisely how “near” or “close” the corresponding elements must be before they would be considered “adjacent,” as instantly claimed.
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
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2012/0249604 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a display panel comprising:
data lines [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: D1, D3] of a first pixel group [e.g., Fig. 1: 10 connected to D1, D3] connected to receive a first data voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: Vd; Paragraph 76: data voltages Vd for D1, D3] during a first sub-frame period [e.g., Fig. 5: SF1] and a black grayscale voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: VGH; Paragraph 76: the black voltage Vblack, or the high-level voltage VGH] during a second sub-frame period [e.g., Fig. 5: SF2, SF3, SF4];
data lines [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: D2, Dm] of a second pixel group [e.g., Fig. 1: 10 connected to D2, Dm] connected to receive the black grayscale voltage during the first sub-frame period and a second data voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: Vd; Paragraph 76: data voltages Vd for Figs. 1, 5: D2, Dm] during the second sub-frame period;
sub-pixels [e.g., Fig. 1: 10 connected to D1, D3] of the first pixel group connected to the data lines of the first pixel group; and
sub-pixels [e.g., Fig. 1: 10 connected to D2, Dm] of the second pixel group connected to the data lines of the second pixel group (e.g., see Figs. 1-6ABCD; Paragraphs 33-83).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses during an emission period (e.g., see Fig. 6A) of the first sub-frame period, the sub-pixels of the first pixel group are turned on, and the sub-pixels of the second pixel group are turned off; and
during an emission period (e.g., see Fig. 6C) of the second sub-frame period, the sub-pixels of the first pixel group are turned off, and the sub-pixels of the second pixel group are turned on (e.g., see Figs. 5-6ABCD; Paragraphs 72-78).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses during a data addressing period [e.g., Fig. 5: S1 high in SF1] of the first sub-frame period, the first data voltage is applied to the sub-pixels of the first pixel group, and the black grayscale voltage is applied to the sub-pixels of the second pixel group at the same time; and
during a data addressing period [e.g., Fig. 5: S1 high in SF3] of the second sub-frame period, the black grayscale voltage is applied to the sub-pixels of the first pixel group, and the second data voltage is applied to the sub-pixels of the second pixel group at the same time (e.g., see Figs. 5-6ABCD; Paragraphs 72-78).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2012/0249604 A1) in view of Matsui et al (US 2012/0194576 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kim doesn’t appear to expressly disclose a switch circuit, as instantly claimed.
However, Matsui discloses a switch circuit [e.g., Fig. 3: 16] that is connected to a first input node [e.g., Fig. 3: 153] to which the first data voltage [e.g., Paragraphs 106-109: signal voltage(s) for 152] and the second data voltage [e.g., Paragraphs 106-109: signal voltage(s) for 151] are applied, a second input node [e.g., Fig. 3: 119] to which the black grayscale voltage [e.g., Paragraphs 113: 0 V] is input, gate nodes [e.g., Fig. 3: 141-144] to which switch signals are applied, the data lines [e.g., Fig. 3: 152] of the first pixel group [e.g., Fig. 3: 11B], and the data lines [e.g., Fig. 3: 151] of the second pixel group [e.g., Fig. 3: 11A] (e.g., see Figs. 3, 8, 9AB; Paragraphs 86, 108-117).
Kim and Matsui are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of light emitting element display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Matsui’s switch circuit with Kim’s display panel, so as to improve image display quality.
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 Matsui’s switch circuit with Kim’s display panel 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 5, Matsui discloses the switch circuit includes:
a first switch part [e.g., Fig. 3: 1st 161-164] connected to a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 1st 151] connected to a sub-pixel of a first color of a first pixel [e.g., Fig. 3: 11B; Paragraph 109: each pixel is made up of an R (red) subpixel], and a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 1st 152] connected to a sub-pixel of the first color of a second pixel [e.g., Fig. 3: 11A; Paragraph 109: each pixel is made up of an R (red) subpixel] adjacent to the first pixel;
a second switch part [e.g., Fig. 3: 2nd 161, 163] connected to a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 2nd 151] connected to a sub-pixel of a second color of the first pixel [e.g., Paragraph 109: each pixel is made up of a B (blue) subpixel], and a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 2nd 152] connected to a sub-pixel of the second color of the second pixel [e.g., Paragraph 109: each pixel is made up of a B (blue) subpixel]; and
a third switch part [e.g., Fig. 3: 3rd 161, 163] connected to a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 3rd 151] connected to a sub-pixel of a third color of the first pixel [e.g., Paragraph 109: each pixel is made up of a G (green) subpixel], and a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 3rd 152] connected to a sub-pixel of the third color of the second pixel [e.g., Paragraph 109: each pixel is made up of a G (green) subpixel] (e.g., see Paragraphs 108-121).
Regarding claim 6, Matsui discloses each of the switch parts includes:
a first transistor [e.g., Fig. 3: 163] connected between the first input node [e.g., Fig. 3: 153] and a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 152] of the first pixel group [e.g., Fig. 3: 11B] and turned on in response to a gate-on voltage of a first switch signal [e.g., Figs. 3, 8, 9B: 143=142; e.g., see Paragraph 118];
a second transistor [e.g., Fig. 3: 161] connected between the second input node [e.g., Fig. 3: 119] and a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 152] of the first pixel group and turned on in response to a gate-on voltage of a second switch signal [e.g., Figs. 3, 8, 9B: 141=144; e.g., see Paragraph 118];
a third transistor [e.g., Fig. 3: 162] connected between the second input node and a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 151] of the second pixel group [e.g., Fig. 3: 11A] and turned on in response to the gate-on voltage of the first switch signal; and
a fourth transistor [e.g., Fig. 3: 164] connected between the first input node and a data line [e.g., Fig. 3: 151] of the second pixel group and turned on in response to the gate-on voltage of the second switch signal (e.g., see Paragraphs 108-121).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species 1 (identified by the Applicant as encompassing claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The identified species share the similar fundamental technical concepts of performing duty driving using a black grayscale voltage to reduce peak current while driving light-emitting elements at high efficiency. The differences in pixel grouping (column VS. checkerboard) and switch circuit transistor count are design variations that would not cause extra time and burden in search and examination. The linking claim (Claim 1) and the overall disclosure demonstrate that the species are closely related embodiments of similar inventive concepts.” This is not found persuasive.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species 1, drawn to the duty driving method of Figs. 6 & 8, and switch circuit of Fig. 12;
Species 2, drawn to the duty driving method of Figs. 9-10, and switch circuit of Fig. 12;
Species 3, drawn to the duty driving method of Figs. 15-16, and switch circuit of Figs. 18ABC; and
Species 4, drawn to the duty driving method of Figs. 15-16, and switch circuit of Figs. 20ABC.
The species are independent or distinct, from each other, because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics (e.g., mutually exclusive structures and/or operations) for each identified species. In addition, the species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species, within each Species Group, require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries for the mutually exclusive characteristics).
Restriction to one of the following inventions is additionally required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a 1st display panel, classified in class G09G 2330/028.
II. Claims 1-6 and 13-17, drawn to a display device, classified in class G09G 3/3291.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Claim 1 links Inventions I and II. The restriction requirement between the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of linking claim 1. Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim, the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
“Invention II” and “Invention I” are related respectively as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that: (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
(1) In the instant case, the Combination does not require the particulars of the Subcombination as claimed because: The Combination as claimed does not require:
“data lines of a first pixel group connected to receive a first data voltage during a first sub-frame period and a black grayscale voltage during a second sub-frame period and a third sub-frame period,” as claimed in independent claim 7;
“data lines of a second pixel group connected to receive a second data voltage during the second sub-frame period and the black grayscale voltage during the first sub-frame period and the third sub-frame period,” as claimed in independent claim 7;
“data lines of a third pixel group connected to receive a third data voltage during the third sub-frame period and the black grayscale voltage during the first sub-frame period and the second sub-frame period,” as claimed in independent claim 7; and
“sub-pixels of the third pixel group connected to the data lines of the third pixel group,” as claimed in independent claim 7 of “Invention I.”
(2) Furthermore, the Subcombination has separate utility, such as: The Subcombination as claimed can be used without requiring:
“a data driver configured to output a first data voltage and a second data voltage,” as claimed in independent claim 13;
“a switch circuit configured to supply a black grayscale voltage to the data lines of the first pixel group and the data lines of the second pixel group,” as claimed in independent claim 13; and
“the black grayscale voltage is configured to be applied to the data lines of the second pixel group during the first sub-frame period, and then the second data voltage is configured to be applied to the data lines of the second pixel group during the second sub-frame period,” as claimed in independent claim 13 of “Invention II.”
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example:
Examining of “Invention I” requires employing uniquely different search queries for “data lines of a first pixel group connected to receive a first data voltage during a first sub-frame period and a black grayscale voltage during a second sub-frame period and a third sub-frame period,” as claimed in independent claim 7;
“data lines of a second pixel group connected to receive a second data voltage during the second sub-frame period and the black grayscale voltage during the first sub-frame period and the third sub-frame period,” as claimed in independent claim 7;
“data lines of a third pixel group connected to receive a third data voltage during the third sub-frame period and the black grayscale voltage during the first sub-frame period and the second sub-frame period,” as claimed in independent claim 7; and
“sub-pixels of the third pixel group connected to the data lines of the third pixel group,” as claimed in independent claim 7 of “Invention I.”
The above search queries would not be required when examining “Invention II.”
Examining of “Invention II” requires employing uniquely different search queries for “a data driver configured to output a first data voltage and a second data voltage,” as claimed in independent claim 13;
“a switch circuit configured to supply a black grayscale voltage to the data lines of the first pixel group and the data lines of the second pixel group,” as claimed in independent claim 13; and
“the black grayscale voltage is configured to be applied to the data lines of the second pixel group during the first sub-frame period, and then the second data voltage is configured to be applied to the data lines of the second pixel group during the second sub-frame period,” as claimed in independent claim 13 of “Invention II.”
The above search queries would not be required when examining “Invention I.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-17 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. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 22 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 panels.
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
25 June 2026
Prosecution Insights