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 § 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 (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 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) 1-2, 16, 18-19, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2022/0335872)
Regarding claim 1:
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").
Regarding claim 2:
Zhang discloses:
wherein the first durations corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are greater than the first duration corresponding to the writing frame (shown in Fig. 15, where the first durations are the "bias adjustment stage" of the data writing and holding frames).
Regarding claim 16:
Zhang discloses:
wherein the pixel circuit further comprises an anode reset module (Fig. 3: 16; Zhang doesn’t call this a “reset” module” but it meets the elements here), the anode reset module has a first terminal electrically connected to a first reset line (Fig. 3: Vini)and a second terminal electrically connected to a light-emitting element (as seen in Fig. 3), and the first reset line provides a first reset voltage (Fig. 3: Vini); and first reset voltages corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are less than a first reset voltage corresponding to the writing frame (paragraph 112).
Regarding claims 18-19:
These are claims to the method performed by the display panel of the earlier claims and is met when the panel operates. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 24:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Hu et al. (US 2023/0335045; hereafter Hu '045)
Regarding claim 3:
Zhang discloses a display panel as discussed above.
Zhang does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of holding frames comprise a first holding frame and a second holding frame, the first holding frame is located between the writing frame and the second holding frame, and a first duration corresponding to the second holding frame is greater than a first duration corresponding to the first holding frame.
(Zhang actually does disclose the first and second holding frames, but not the duration being greater).
Hu '045 discloses:
wherein the plurality of holding frames comprise a first holding frame and a second holding frame, the first holding frame is located between the writing frame and the second holding frame, and a first duration corresponding to the second holding frame is greater than a first duration corresponding to the first holding 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.
Regarding claim 4:
Zhang in view of Hu '045 discloses:
wherein a duration of the active level in the first scanning signal is a second duration; and second durations corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are greater than a second duration corresponding to the writing frame (the active level of the signal SP can be seen in Hu Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 5:
Zhang in view of Hu '045 discloses:
wherein second durations corresponding to at least some continuous ones of the plurality of holding frames increase gradually; or wherein the driving cycle comprises a first holding period and a second holding period, the first holding period is located between the writing frame and the second holding period, the first holding period and the second holding period comprise at least two of the holding frames, respectively, second durations corresponding to the first holding period are equal, second durations corresponding to the second holding period are equal, and the second durations corresponding to the second holding period are greater than the second durations corresponding to the first holding period (they increase gradually as seen in Hu '045 Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 6:
Zhang in view of Hu '045 discloses:
wherein a difference between second durations corresponding to at least some of adjacent holding frames is Δt, and 2H≤Δt≤8H; wherein H=1 / (f×n), f represents a basic frequency of the display panel, and n represents the number of rows of pixel circuits in the display panel (this follows from the discussion of paragraph 100 -- the scan time is the second duration, so, e.g., "4 times row time" would fit this formula).
Regarding claim 20:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Hu et al. (US 2023/0230535; hereafter Hu '535)
Regarding claim 7:
Zhang discloses a display panel as discussed above.
Zhang does not disclose:
"wherein in the light-emitting cycle, the number of the at least one active level in the first scanning signal is a first quantity; and first quantities corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are greater than a first quantity corresponding to the writing frame."
Hu '535 discloses:
wherein in the light-emitting cycle, the number of the at least one active level in the first scanning signal is a first quantity; and first quantities corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are greater than a first quantity corresponding to the writing frame (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Zhang the elements taught by Hu '535.
The rationale is as follows:
Zhang and Hu '535 are directed to the same field of art.
Hu '535 discloses this is a way to increase the effective pulse duration (paragraph 53). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Jin et al. (US 2024/0249661)
Regarding claim 8:
Zhang discloses a display panel as discussed above.
Zhang does not disclose:
"wherein at a first gray level of the first frequency, the bias voltages corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are less than the bias voltage corresponding to the writing frame, and the first gray level is less than 128."
Jin discloses:
wherein at a first gray level of the first frequency, the bias voltages corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are less than the bias voltage corresponding to the writing frame, and the first gray level is less than 128 (shown in, e.g., Fig. 4B, but discussed with respect to the grayscale in paragraph 120: this is gray level 11).
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 Jin.
The rationale is as follows:
Zhang and Jin are directed to the same field of art.
Jin discloses this improves the optical profile (paragraph 121). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 9:
Zhang in view of Jin discloses:
wherein the first gray level is less than or equal to 16 (it is 11 as per paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 10:
Zhang in view of Jin discloses:
wherein at a second gray level of the first frequency, the bias voltages corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are greater than the bias voltage corresponding to the writing frame, and the second gray level is greater than or equal to 128 (in Jin Fig. 4D some levels are higher; Jin does not specifically discuss the grayscale with respect to this graph, but from, e.g., Fig. 8, it can be applied to gray levels above 128).
Regarding claim 21:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Jin and further in view of Hu '045
Regarding claim 11:
This claim includes the elements taught by Jin discussed above and those taught by Hu '045 as per, e.g., claim 5. The combination of Jin and Hu '045 together is equally obvious.
Zhang in view of Jin and further in view of Hu '045 discloses:
wherein the bias voltages corresponding to at least some continuous ones of the plurality of holding frames changes gradually; or wherein the driving cycle comprises a first holding period and a second holding period, the first holding period is located between the writing frame and the second holding period, the first holding period and the second holding period comprise at least two of the plurality of holding frames, respectively, bias voltages corresponding to the first holding period are equal, bias voltages corresponding to the second holding period are equal, and the bias voltages corresponding to the first holding period are different from the bias voltages corresponding to the second holding period (they increase gradually as per Hu '045 Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 12:
Zhang , etc., discloses:
wherein a difference between bias voltages corresponding to at least some of adjacent holding frames is ΔV, and 0.01 V≤|ΔV|≤0.1V (falls within the voltages disclosed in, e.g., paragraph 108).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Na (US 2021/0366397)
Regarding claim 15:
Zhang discloses a display panel as discussed above.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the first durations corresponding to at least some of the plurality of holding frames are different from the first duration corresponding to the writing frame (Fig. 15); and
wherein the pixel circuit further comprises an anode reset module (Fig. 3: 16), and the anode reset module has a first terminal electrically connected to a first reset line (Fig. 3: Vini), and a second terminal electrically connected to a light-emitting element (as seen in Fig. 3).
Zhang does not disclose:
“the anode reset module has a control terminal electrically connected to the first can line.”
Na discloses:
the anode reset module has a control terminal electrically connected to the first can line (as seen in Fig. 5, the bias transistor and the anode reset transistor both use the GB[i] line).
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 Na.
The rationale is as follows:
Zhang and Na are directed to the same field of art.
Na shows that the bias control and anode reset can be controlled by the same line, simplifying timing and working in concert (e.g., paragraphs 67-69). This is a known improvement one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Cheng et al. (US 2024/0404470)
Regarding claim 17:
Zhang discloses a display panel as discussed above.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 22-23 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 13:
The prior art of record discloses some elements of this claim, including a first period and a second period, the first period is located between the writing frame and the second period, and the first period and the second period comprise a plurality of holding frames, respectively, as discussed in the rejections above. But the prior art does not teach or suggest the combination of wherein first durations corresponding to the first period are equal to the first duration corresponding to the writing frame, and bias voltages corresponding to the first period are equal to the bias voltage corresponding to the writing frame; and wherein first durations corresponding to the second period are different from the first duration corresponding to the writing frame, and/or bias voltages corresponding to the second period are different from the bias voltage corresponding to the writing frame. These elements in combination with the other elements of the claim render it allowable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 14 and 22-23:
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13; claims 22-23 contain similar subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (US 2022/0392382).
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