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 .
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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2022/0335872) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2024/0404470)
Regarding claim 25:
Zhang discloses:
A display panel (abstract), comprising:
a pixel circuit, (Fig. 3) comprising a driving module (Fig. 3: 12) and a bias adjustment module (Fig. 3: 14), wherein the bias adjustment module has a control terminal electrically connected to a first scan line (Fig. 3: SV), a first terminal electrically connected to a bias signal line (Fig. 3: Vs1/Vs2/V0), and a second terminal electrically connected to a first terminal of the driving module (as shown in Fig. 3), the first scan line provides a first scanning signal (as per paragraph 38: "bias adjustment signal"), and the bias signal line provides a bias voltage (paragraph 41);
wherein the display panel has a first frequency, a driving cycle at the first frequency comprises a writing frame and a plurality of holding frames (paragraph 101), and the writing frame and each of the holding frames comprise at least one light-emitting cycle (paragraph 103), respectively;
wherein within the light-emitting cycle, a total duration of at least one active level of the first scanning signal is a first duration (paragraph 90: "a low level of the scan signal SV"); and
wherein at the first frequency, first durations corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are different from a first duration corresponding to the writing frame, and/or bias voltages corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are different from a bias voltage corresponding to the writing frame (paragraph 105: "the bias adjustment signal…provided in the data writing frame is different from the bias adjustment signal…provided in the holding frame").
Zhang does not disclose:
"wherein the first frequency is less than 10 Hz."
(Zhang mentions 10 Hz in paragraph 130 but never explicitly says it could be less than this.)
Cheng discloses:
wherein the first frequency is less than 10 Hz. (paragraph 134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Zhang the elements taught by Cheng.
The rationale is as follows:
Zhang and Cheng are directed to the same field of art.
Zhang never discusses in detail the possible frequencies the panel could use. Cheng shows what refresh rates might be desirable. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2022/0335872) in view of Hu et al. (US 2023/0335045; hereafter Hu ‘045)
Regarding claim 26:
Zhang discloses:
A display panel (abstract), comprising:
a pixel circuit, (Fig. 3) comprising a driving module (Fig. 3: 12) and a bias adjustment module (Fig. 3: 14), wherein the bias adjustment module has a control terminal electrically connected to a first scan line (Fig. 3: SV), a first terminal electrically connected to a bias signal line (Fig. 3: Vs1/Vs2/V0), and a second terminal electrically connected to a first terminal of the driving module (as shown in Fig. 3), the first scan line provides a first scanning signal (as per paragraph 38: "bias adjustment signal"), and the bias signal line provides a bias voltage (paragraph 41);
wherein the display panel has a first frequency, a driving cycle at the first frequency comprises a writing frame and a plurality of holding frames (paragraph 101), and the writing frame and each of the holding frames comprise at least one light-emitting cycle (paragraph 103), respectively;
wherein within the light-emitting cycle, a total duration of at least one active level of the first scanning signal is a first duration (paragraph 90: "a low level of the scan signal SV"); and
wherein at the first frequency, bias voltages corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are different from a bias voltage corresponding to the writing frame (paragraph 105: “the bias adjustment signal…provided in the data writing frame is different from the bias adjustment signal…provided in the holding frame”).
Zhang does not disclose:
“first durations corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are different from a first duration corresponding to the writing frame.”
Hu ‘045 discloses:
first durations corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are different from a first duration corresponding to the writing frame (Fig. 24, where the duration s4 in Hu is equivalent to the bias setting period in Zhang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Zhang the elements taught by Hu '045.
The rationale is as follows:
Zhang and Hu '045 are directed to the same field of art. Hu discloses this suppresses a difference in brightness levels between periods (paragraph 80). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 14-21, 23, and 24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
These claims now include the subject matter of either prior claim 13, or 22, which were indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the Office Action mailed 05 May 2026. A reason for the indication of allowable subject matter was given in that Office Action.-
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 August 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to claims 1-12, 14-21, 23, and 24, applicant agued that they now include the allowable subject matter of the prior claim 13 or 22. This is persuasive.
Applicant next (starting page 11) argued that new claim 25 is allowable. There are a few arguments here.
First applicant argues that Zhang does not disclose “a first frequency,” and also argues that there is a difference between a data refresh cycle and driving cycle. Zhang, however, discusses this distinction in, e.g., paragraph 103.
Applicant next (page 12) argues that in Zhang the bias adjustment does not happen during the light-emitting phase. This is not claimed. What the claim recites is that there is active level of the scanning signal “during the light-emitting cycle.” The light-emitting cycle is not the same thing as the actual light-emitting time.
This is true in applicant’s disclosed invention. See, e.g., Fig. 4, where the Emit signal (which controls light emission) is high for part of the time period and low for the second part. Because of the type of transistor in the circuit of Fig. 3, light emission occurs when the Emit signal is low, and this is not the time period when the bias adjustment happens. So Zhang is doing exactly the same thing as applicant’s own invention.
Next (still page 12), applicant argues that Zhang discloses using different signals for different brightness modes and not for the “first frequency.” But the claim only recites one frequency so even if Zhang only does this at a single frequency it would still meet the claim language. In any case, Zhang does disclose multiple frequencies (see, e.g., paragraph 117).
Next (page 13) applicant agues with the teaching of Chen. This is because claim 25 is similar to the prior claim 17, which Chen was relied upon to reject. As applicant has predicted, the Examiner has again relied upon Chen for part of the claim language.
The argument here is that Chen merely discloses multiple refresh rates “without any specific teaching, optimization or technical application directed to <10 HZ ultra-low frequency driving,” and that the refresh rate in Chen is different from the claimed first driving frequency.
This is not a strong argument. First, Zhang already discloses frequencies as low as 10 Hz, so it is very, very, very close to the claim already. Is there really a big difference between 9.9Hz and 10 Hz? Chen is only relied upon to show that it is known to have even lower driving frequencies. That is it. It doesn’t need to teach any specific optimization because Zhang already teaches optimizations that work at least as low as 10 Hz, so it seems reasonable to assume they would also work under 10 Hz. Applicant argues there’s no reason to combine Zhang and Chen but the only thing being combined here is the suggestion that a frequency could be lower than 10 Hz, which since Zhang already frequencies right on the border of this seems quite trivial.
Next (page 13), applicant argues that new claim 26 is allowable without giving any specific argument against the art. The Examiner has rejected this claim as noted above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights