Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 19/246,828

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Examiner
NGUYEN, KEVIN M
Art Unit
2628
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
760 granted / 966 resolved
+16.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
989
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.8%
+4.8% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 966 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. US 2016/0117992. As to claim 1, Park teaches a display device (abstract, ¶12, Figs 1-14), a display panel including a pixel (a pixel array 200, ¶77); a panel driver (item 30a, see ¶77, Fig 9) configured to provide a reference voltage and a data voltage to the pixel (see ¶34); wherein the pixel emits light with a luminance (a brightness, Fig 2) corresponding to a difference (delta voltage, ¶7-¶8) between the reference voltage and the data voltage (see ¶13, ¶ 77, Figs 2-3), in a first mode (normal mode, Fig 2), the reference voltage has a first voltage level (see at least ¶52), and in a second mode (second mode, Fig 3), the reference voltage has a second voltage level different from the first voltage level (see at least ¶52, Figs 2-3: [0052] when the mode of the display device is changed from the normal mode NM to the power save mode PSM, the power supply voltage ELVDD of the display device may be decreased by the delta voltage DV. When the power supply voltage ELVDD of the display device is decreased by the delta voltage DV, the reference voltage VREF may be decreased by the delta voltage DV. When the reference voltage VREF is decreased by the delta voltage DV, the first gamma power supply voltage VDD_G1 may be decreased by the delta voltage DV, to decrease the data voltage VD. The power supply string point PSP to which the second gamma power supply voltage VDD_G2 is applied may be selected.). PNG media_image1.png 271 412 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 298 396 media_image2.png Greyscale As to claim 2, Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a voltage level of a maximum data voltage (highest data voltage VS_1, ¶43) corresponding to a minimum gray level (minimum gamma voltage V0, Fig 1, ¶32) in the second mode (¶33) is different from a voltage level of the maximum data voltage in the first mode (¶43). As to claim 3, Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein a voltage level of an analog power supply voltage (ELVDD, ¶50) supplied to an analog circuit of the panel driver in the second mode is different from a voltage level of the analog power supply voltage in the first mode. (See ¶9). As to claim 4, Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the second voltage level of the reference voltage in the second mode is lower than the first voltage level of the reference voltage in the first mode. (See ¶52). As to claim 5, Park teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein a voltage level of a maximum data voltage (VS_1) corresponding to a minimum gray level (gamma voltage V0, Fig 1, ¶32) in the second mode is lower than a voltage level of the maximum data voltage in the first mode (See ¶43). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. US 2021/0118391. As to claim 6, Park fail to teach the display device of claim 4, wherein a voltage level of an analog power supply voltage supplied to an analog circuit of the panel driver in the second mode is lower than a voltage level of the analog power supply voltage in the first mode. Ahn teaches the data driver 140 receives the analog driving voltage AVDD of the power supply 120, in the second mode is lower than a voltage level of the analog power supply voltage in the first mode. See ¶58, ¶86, ¶75, Figs 2, and 9-10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), to have the data driver 140 receives the analog driving voltage AVDD of the power supply 120, in the second mode is lower than a voltage level of the analog power supply voltage in the first mode, as Ahn teaches, to modify Park. The motivation for doing so would reduce the entire aging process time for the display device. Ahn ¶5. As to claim 7, Ahn teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the pixel generates a driving current based on the difference between the reference voltage and the data voltage, and emits light based on the driving current. (See Ahn ¶75). As to claim 8, Ahn teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first mode is a high dynamic range mode, and the second mode is a normal mode (See Ahn ¶89-¶90, Fig 10). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Nguyen whose telephone is 571-272-7697. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm Eastern Time. 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, Nitin Patel can be reached on 571-272-7677. 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. KEVIN M NGUYEN Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628 /Kevin M Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628 Telephone: (571) 272-7697 Email: kevin.nguyen2@uspto.gov
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 24, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596436
TACTILE PRESENTATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588337
DISPLAY DEVICE AND TILED DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588401
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586543
METHODS AND CIRCUITS FOR DIODE-BASED DISPLAY BACKPLANES AND ELECTRONIC DISPLAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586539
DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
83%
With Interview (+4.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 966 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