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 4-7 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 “about” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 term “about” is purely subjective.
The term “gradually change” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” 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 term “gradually” is purely subjective.
Claim 5 is indefinite where it specifies “predetermined,” since “predetermined,” according to applicant's definition, merely means “determined beforehand.” For example, see Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. V. Marzall, Comr. Pats., 84 USPQ 180 (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia).
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al (US 2023/0005429 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a display device, comprising:
a display panel [e.g., Fig. 1: 110] including a plurality of data lines [e.g., Fig. 1: DL], a plurality of scan lines [e.g., Fig. 1: SL], and a plurality of power lines [e.g., Figs. 1, 9: VDD, VSS lines; Fig. 9: PL1, PL2; Paragraph 65: power lines];
a data driving circuit including a data driver [e.g., Fig. 1: 130] configured to output a data signal [e.g., Fig. 9: Data] and a scan driver [e.g., Fig. 1: 120] configured to output a scan signal [e.g., Fig. 9: Scan]; and
a power supply [e.g., Fig. 1, 3: 150, 160] configured to supply a power voltage [e.g., Paragraph 50, Fig. 1: VDD, VSS] to the display panel through the power lines, to supply a first driving power [e.g., Figs. 3, 4: VGL1] to the data driving circuit in a first mode [e.g., Fig. 6: VGL1<Vref1, gate voltage compensation deferred], and to supply the first driving power and a second driving power [e.g., Figs. 3, 4: VGL2] to the data driving circuit in a second mode [e.g., Fig. 6: VGL1>Vref1, gate voltage compensation; Paragraph 71: The second gate voltages VGH2 and VGL2 may be provided to the gate integrated circuit GDIC in case that the first gate voltages VGH1 and VGL1 sensed through a feedback line 261 are greater than a first reference voltage] different from the first mode (e.g., see Paragraphs 45-155).
Regarding claim 2, Jang discloses the scan driver is configured to generate a first reference power [e.g., Fig. 3: SVGL for a 1st row] and a second reference power [e.g., Fig. 3: SVGL for a 2nd row] based on the first driving power in the first mode, and generate the first reference power and the second reference power based on the first driving power and the second driving power in the second mode (e.g., see Paragraphs 69-74).
Regarding claim 3, Jang discloses the scan driver includes:
a first pump [e.g., Fig. 3: 1st 210] configured to output the first reference power; and
a second pump [e.g., Fig. 3: 2nd 210] configured to output a second reference power [e.g., Fig. 3: SVGL for a 2nd row] having a same absolute value [SVGL = SVGL] as the first reference power (e.g., see Paragraphs 69-74).
Regarding claim 8, Jang discloses an absolute value of the second driving power is less than an absolute value of the first driving power [e.g., see Paragraph 77: in case that the first low-level voltage VGL1 of about −2V or greater is applied, the gate block may occur in the display panel 110. Therefore, in an embodiment, the gate voltage may be compensated so that the first low-level voltage VGL1 becomes about −2V or less].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2023/0005429 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Jang doesn’t appear to expressly disclose the first reference power is a sum of about twice the first driving power and the second driving power.
However, there are only three possibilities: the first reference power is less than a sum of about twice the first driving power and the second driving power, the first reference power is a sum of about twice the first driving power and the second driving power, or the first reference power is greater than a sum of about twice the first driving power and the second driving power.
Therefore, 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., setting the first reference power to be less than a sum of about twice the first driving power and the second driving power, setting the first reference power to be a sum of about twice the first driving power and the second driving power, or setting the first reference power to be greater than a sum of about twice the first driving power and the second driving power). 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).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2023/0005429 A1) in view of Heo et al (US 2017/0098409 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jang doesn’t appear to expressly disclose gradually changing absolute values of the first reference power and of the second reference power at predetermined time intervals.
However, Heo discloses the power supply [e.g., Fig. 1: 140] is further configured to gradually change [e.g., Fig. 5: change between T1 and T2] absolute values of the first reference power [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: VSS1] and of the second reference power [e.g., Figs. 1, 5: VSS2] at predetermined time intervals (e.g., see Paragraphs 48-130).
Jang and Heo are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of display devices.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Heo’s gradual change technique with Jang’s display, so as to stably generate signals.
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 Heo’s gradual change technique with Jang’s display 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, Heo discloses the absolute values of the first reference power and the second reference power change as the second driving power [e.g., Fig. 3: CR] increases at the predetermined time intervals (e.g., see Paragraph 98: boosting the first scan voltage VSS1 and the second scan voltage VSS2, based on the comparison result CR).
Regarding claim 7, Heo discloses each predetermined time interval is one frame (e.g., see Paragraphs 73-74).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2023/0005429 A1) in view of Jeong et al (US 2016/0133174 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Jang doesn’t appear to expressly disclose a lookup table configured to store a plurality of gamma voltages.
However, Jeong discloses the data driver includes:
a lookup table [e.g., Figs. 4, 5: 310] configured to store a plurality of gamma voltages corresponding to a luminance range of an image output by the display panel (e.g., see Paragraph 48); and
a gamma voltage generation circuit [e.g., Figs. 4, 5: 340, 350] configured to select one of the gamma voltages and output the selected gamma voltage as the data signal (e.g., see Paragraphs 49-57).
Jang and Jeong are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of display devices.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Jeong’s lookup table with Jang’s display, so that image quality of the display panel may be improved.
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 Jeong’s lookup table with Jang’s display 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 10, Jeong discloses the gamma voltage generation circuit includes first to n-th gamma voltage generators [e.g., Figs. 4, 5: 320, 330] corresponding to n (where n is an integer greater than or equal to 1) luminance ranges, respectively (e.g., see Paragraphs 46-57).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I in the reply filed on 26 March 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 March 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 and 3 in the reply filed on 26 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Although all the Species identified by the Restriction are considered distinct for the reasons set forth by the Examiner, applicant believes that simultaneous examination will not present an undue burden. Moreover, pursuant to MPEP § 803, Applicant is entitled to have a reasonable number of species examined. Under such circumstances, the Examiner is encouraged to at least maintain all the Species in the same application.” This is not found persuasive.
Firstly, 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 exclusive characteristics [e.g., mutually exclusive structures and/or operations]).
Secondly, MPEP 803.04 states, “In 1996, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks decided sua sponte to partially waive the requirements of 37 CFR 1.141et seq. and permit a reasonable number of such nucleotide sequences to be claimed in a single application.” However, the instant claims don’t recite any nucleotide sequences.
Thirdly, MPEP 803.04 states, “If the members of a proper Markush group are sufficiently few in number or so closely related that a search and examination of the entire claim can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine all the members of the Markush group in the claim on the merits, even though they may be directed to independent and distinct inventions.” However, the instant claims don’t recite any Markush groups.
Fourthly, a total of eight mutually exclusive species (Species 1+3, Species 1+4, Species 1+5, Species 1+6, Species 2+3, Species 2+4, Species 2+5, Species 2+6) is a completely unreasonable number of species/inventions to expect to be examined when only paying enough in fees to have a single invention examined.
As such, the Applicant’s argument “pursuant to MPEP § 803” isn’t applicable to the instant claims. Nor is it persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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
17 April 2026
Prosecution Insights