CTNF 19/270,212 CTNF 75558 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA 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. Drawings 06-37 AIA The drawings were received on 11 May 2026 . These drawings are acceptable . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim 20 is 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ low ” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ low ” 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 “ low ” is purely subjective. 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (US 2014/0313242 A1) in view of Lee (US 2008/0172569 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Kaplan discloses a display device comprising: a voltage generator [ e.g., Fig. 1: 40 ] configured to generate a first driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 2: ELVDD2; or Fig. 3: ELVDD1 ], corresponding to an input power source [ e.g., Fig. 1: CONT3 ]; and pixels [ e.g., Fig. 1: PX ] connected to scan lines [ e.g., Fig. 1: S ] and data lines [ e.g., Fig. 1: D ], wherein the pixels include: a first pixel [ e.g., Fig. 2: 100_3; or Fig. 3: 300_1 ] configured to emit light of a first color [ e.g., Paragraphs 45, 82: blue ], corresponding to the first driving power source; and a second pixel [ e.g., Fig. 2: 100_1; or Fig. 3: 300_3 ] configured to emit light of a second color [ e.g., Paragraphs 45, 82: red ], corresponding to a second driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 2: ELVDD1; or Fig. 3: ELVDD2 or ELVSS2 ] ( e.g., see Paragraphs 28-116 ). Kaplan doesn’t appear to expressly disclose a battery , as instantly claimed. However, Lee (‘569) discloses a display device comprising: a battery [ e.g., Paragraphs 44, 56, 58: battery combined with Fig. 1: 5B, 7B_P, or battery combined with Fig. 1: 5A, 5B, 7B_P ]; a voltage generator [ e.g., Fig. 1: 7A_P ] configured to generate a first driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 1: VDD1 ], corresponding to an input power source [ e.g., Fig. 1: BAT to 5A, or power from 5A to 7A_P ] supplied from the battery; and pixels [ e.g., Fig. 5: P ] connected to scan lines [ e.g., Fig. 5: S ] and data lines [ e.g., Fig. 5: D ], wherein the pixels include: a first pixel [ e.g., Fig. 5: 1 st P for Fig. 1: 9A ] configured to emit light, corresponding to the first driving power source; and a second pixel [ e.g., Fig. 5: 2 nd P for Fig. 1: 9B ] configured to emit light, corresponding to a second driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 1: BAT to 5B, power from 5B to 7B_P, or VDD2, or VSS2 ] supplied from the battery ( e.g., see Paragraphs 40-127 ). Kaplan and Lee (‘569) are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of powering display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Lee’s (‘569) battery with Kaplan’s display device, so as to provide a mobile device. 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 Lee’s (‘569) battery with Kaplan’s display device 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 3, Kaplan discloses the second driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 3: ELVSS2 ] has a lower voltage than the first driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 3: ELVDD1 ] ( e.g., Paragraphs 38-39: ELVDD1 = high potential, ELVSS2 = low potential ). Kaplan doesn’t appear to expressly disclose Fig. 2’s ELVDD1 ( provided to both red and green pixels 100_1 and 100_2 ) being lower than Fig. 2’s ELVDD2 ( provided to a blue pixel 100_3 ). However, Paragraph 38 states, “ first voltage supply line ELVDD1 and the second voltage supply line ELVDD2 may transmit driving power source voltages having predetermined different high potentials .” Therefore, there are only two possibilities: Fig. 2’s ELVDD1 either lower than or greater than Fig. 2’s ELVDD2. As such, 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., making the second driving power source have either a lower or higher voltage than the first driving power source ). 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). Regarding claim 4, Kaplan discloses the first color is blue and the second color is red ( e.g., see Paragraph 82 ). Regarding claim 5, Kaplan discloses the pixels further include a third pixel [ e.g., Fig. 2: 100_2; Fig. 3: 300_2 ] configured to emit light of a third color [ e.g., Paragraphs 45, 82: green ], corresponding to the second driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 2: ELVDD1; or Fig. 3: ELVSS2 ], and wherein the third color is green ( e.g., see Paragraphs 38-39 and 82 ). Regarding claim 6, Kaplan discloses a scan driver [ e.g., Fig. 1: 20 ] configured to drive the scan lines; a data driver [ e.g., Fig. 1: 30 ] configured to drive the data lines; and a timing controller [ e.g., Fig. 1: 50 ] configured to control the scan driver and the data driver ( e.g., see Paragraphs 28-43 ). Regarding claim 7, Kaplan discloses each of the pixels includes: a light emitting element [ e.g., Figs 2-3: OLED ] configured to emit light of the first color or the second color; and a driving transistor [ e.g., Figs 2-3: TD ] configured to supply a driving current [ e.g., Paragraph 61: Ioled ] to the light emitting element from the first driving power source or the second driving power source ( e.g., see Paragraphs 44-72 ). Regarding claim 8, Kaplan discloses the driving transistor is a P-type transistor ( e.g., see Paragraph 50 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (US 2014/0313242 A1) in view of Lee (US 2008/0172569 A1) ; or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (US 2014/0313242 A1) in view of Lee (US 2008/0172569 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0312848 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Lee (‘569) discloses the second driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 1: BAT to 5B, power from 5B to 7B_P, or VDD2 ] and the input power source [ e.g., Fig. 1: BAT to 5A, or power from 5A to 7A_P ] have a same power source [ e.g., Paragraphs 44, 56, 58: battery combined with Fig. 1: 5B, 7B_P, or battery combined with Fig. 1: 5A, 5B, 7B_P ]. Should it be shown Lee (‘569) discloses a same power source , as instantly claimed, with insufficient specificity: Lee (‘848) discloses the second driving power source [ e.g., Figs. 1, 4: ELVDD = 4.6 V ] and the input power source [ e.g., Figs. 1, 4: VIN = 4.6 V during LDO Enable Mode ] have a same power source [ e.g., Paragraph 48: a battery, or a battery combined with Fig. 1: 100; wherein Fig. 4: ELVDD = VIN ] ( e.g., see Paragraphs 46-96 ). Kaplan , Lee (‘569) and Lee (‘848) are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of powering display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Lee’s (‘848) same power source with Kaplan’s [or Kaplan’s and Lee’s (‘569) ] display device, so that the pixel power supply voltage having the desired voltage level may be generated. 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 Lee’s (‘848) same power source with Kaplan’s [or Kaplan’s and Lee’s (‘569) ] display device 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) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (US 2014/0313242 A1) in view of Lee (US 2008/0172569 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ha et al (US 2022/0343825 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Kaplan and Lee (‘569) don’t appear to expressly disclose correction value generator , as instantly claimed. However, Ha discloses the timing controller includes: a correction value generator [ e.g., Fig. 7: CSP, LUT; Fig. 3: RL1, RL2 ] configured to receive the second driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 3: ELVDD ], and to generate a correction value [ e.g., Fig. 7: CS ], corresponding to a voltage of the second driving power source [ e.g., Paragraph 89: the correction table may be generated based on not only the grayscale value difference of the image signals P-RGB and RGB of the first and second frames F1 and F2, but also the change in voltage level of the first driving voltage ELVDD in response to the change in the grayscale value of the image signals P-RGB and RGB of the first and second frames F1 and F2 ]; and an output data generator [ e.g., Fig. 7: GNP ] configured to generate corrected output data [ e.g., Fig. 7: IMD ] by reflecting the correction value on input data [ e.g., Fig. 7: RGB ] ( e.g., see Paragraphs 24-147 ). Kaplan , Lee (‘569) and Ha are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of powering display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Ha’s correction value generator and output data generator with Kaplan’s and Lee’s (‘569) display device, so as to reduce a power consumption and prevent the display quality of images from being deteriorated. 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 Ha’s correction value generator and output data generator with Kaplan’s and Lee’s (‘569) display device 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, Ha discloses the corrected output data corresponds to the second pixel [ e.g., Paragraph 59: red pixel; Fig. 3: PX ] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (US 2014/0313242 A1) in view of Lee (US 2008/0172569 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2023/0215384 A1) . Regarding claim 11, Kaplan and Lee (‘569) don’t appear to expressly disclose a gamma voltage generator , as instantly claimed. However, Kim (‘384) discloses a reference voltage generator [ e.g., Fig. 9: 360, 361; Fig. 1: PL1 ] configured to receive the second driving power source [ e.g., Paragraph 58: the compensation value may be generated by detecting the fluctuation of the high-potential driving voltage ELVDD ], and to generate a first gamma reference voltage [ e.g., Paragraph 89: the low gamma voltage terminal BRV1 receives a compensation voltage AVREF1 (hereinafter, referred to as a lower reference voltage) of a low reference voltage VREF1 ± the high-potential driving voltage ELVDD ] and a second gamma reference voltage [ e.g., Paragraph 89: the high gamma voltage terminal BRVn receives a compensation voltage AVREFn (hereinafter, referred to as a higher reference voltage) of a high reference voltage VREFn ± the high-potential driving voltage ELVDD ]; and a gamma voltage generator [ e.g., Fig. 9: 330 ] configured to generate first gamma voltages [ e.g., Fig. 9: GM1, GM9 ] corresponding to the first pixel [ e.g., Fig. 1: PX; Fig. 9: blue; Paragraph 39: blue pixel ] and second gamma voltages [ e.g., Fig. 9: GM2, GM3 ] corresponding to the second pixel [ e.g., Fig. 1: PX; Fig. 9: red; Paragraph 39: red pixel ], corresponding to the first gamma reference voltage and the second gamma reference voltage, wherein the second gamma reference voltage is controlled corresponding to a voltage of the second driving power source ( e.g., see Paragraphs 82-94 ). Kaplan , Lee (‘569) and Kim (‘384) are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of powering display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Kim’s (‘384) reference voltage generator and gamma voltage generator with Kaplan’s and Lee’s (‘569) display device, so as to provide low power consumption, high brightness, fast response time. 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 Kim’s (‘384) reference voltage generator and gamma voltage generator with Kaplan’s and Lee’s (‘569) display device 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 12, Kim (‘384) discloses the gamma voltage generator includes: a first gamma voltage generator [ e.g., Fig. 9: RS1, 1 st BUF ] configured to generate the first gamma voltages, corresponding to the first gamma reference voltage; and a second gamma voltage generator [ e.g., Fig. 9: RS2, 2 nd BUF ] configured to generate the second gamma voltages, corresponding to the second gamma reference voltage ( e.g., see Paragraphs 82-94 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al (US 2014/0313242 A1) in view of Lee (US 2008/0172569 A1) and Kim (US 2023/0215401 A1) . Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claims 1 and 3; furthermore, Kaplan discloses an electronic device comprising: a controller [ e.g., Fig. 1: 50 ] configured to receive an image signal [ e.g., Paragraph 34: external video signal ], and output image data [ e.g., Fig. 1: Data ] by converting a data format of the image signal [ e.g., Paragraph 34: The signal controller 50 may drive a plurality of sub-frames divided from one frame, and convert an external video signal so that an image may be displayed corresponding to each sub frame; Paragraph 40: The signal controller 50 receives and converts an external video signal into an image data signal Data corresponding to a sub-frame, and transmits the converted image data signal Data to the data driver 30 ]; a display panel [ e.g., Fig. 1: 10 ]; and a second pixel [ e.g., Fig. 2: 100_1; or Fig. 3: 300_3 ] configured to emit light of a second color [ e.g., Paragraphs 45, 82: red ], corresponding to a second driving power source [ e.g., Fig. 2: ELVDD1; or Fig. 3: ELVDD2 or ELVSS2 ] which has a relatively low voltage ( e.g., Paragraphs 38-39: ELVDD1 = high potential, ELVSS2 = low potential ) as compared with the first driving power source ( e.g., see Paragraphs 28-116 ). Kaplan doesn’t appear to expressly disclose Fig. 2’s ELVDD1 ( provided to both red and green pixels 100_1 and 100_2 ) being lower than Fig. 2’s ELVDD2 ( provided to a blue pixel 100_3 ). However, Paragraph 38 states, “ first voltage supply line ELVDD1 and the second voltage supply line ELVDD2 may transmit driving power source voltages having predetermined different high potentials .” Therefore, there are only two possibilities: Fig. 2’s ELVDD1 either lower than or greater than Fig. 2’s ELVDD2. As such, 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., making the second driving power source have either a lower or higher voltage than the first driving power source ). 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). Kaplan and Lee (‘569) don’t appear to expressly disclose a memory , as instantly claimed. However, Kim (‘401) discloses an electronic device comprising: a main processor [ e.g., Figs. 1, 3, 5: 110; Fig. 2: 220, 240 ]; a controller [ e.g., Figs. 1, 3, 5: 120 ] configured to receive an image signal from the main processor, and output image data by converting a data format of the image signal [ e.g., Paragraph 54: The timing controller 120 may receive input image data from the main processor 110 and supply the image data DATA to the data driving circuit 320 based on the input image data; Paragraph 31: The main processor 110 and the timing controller 120 may send and receive converted commands and signals according to a preset or selected interface standard; Paragraph 38: The transmission/reception circuit 240 may transmit/receive commands, signals, interrupts, and data converted according to various interface standards to and from the above-described timing controller 120; Paragraph 95: Transmitted data may be converted into 8B/10B code or Manchester code and be transmitted from the source transmission/reception circuit 520 and the sink transmission/reception circuit 530 to the interface 510 ]; a memory [ e.g., Fig. 2: 210; Paragraph 38: external memory; Paragraphs 157-158: memory ] configured to store data processed from the main processor [ e.g., Paragraph 38: The transmission/reception circuit 240 may provide image data stored in an external memory (not shown) to the display driving circuit 130 (particularly, a data driving circuit) through the timing controller 120; Paragraph 157: A value for the length of the vertical blank period VBLANK according to the refresh frame rate may be previously stored in the memory; Paragraph 165: The main processor 110 compares the output value of the counter COUNTER and the previously stored length of the vertical blank period VBLANK; Paragraph 168: the value stored in the memory may be updated based on a value output from the counter COUNTER; Paragraph 171: the main processor 110 may store the output value of the counter COUNTER in the memory; Paragraph 218: The main processor stores, in the memory, the number of pulses of the clock signal counted by the counter until the time when the active synchronization signal ACTIVE SYNC is output to the auxiliary channel AUX ]; and a display panel [ e.g., Fig. 3: 310 ] ( e.g., see Paragraphs 29-246 ). Kaplan and Lee (‘569) are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of driving display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Kim’s (‘401) processor and memory with Kaplan’s and Lee’s (‘569) electronic device, so as to reduce power consumed. 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 Kim’s (‘401) processor and memory with Kaplan’s and Lee’s (‘569) electronic device 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) . Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species 2, 4 and 5 in the reply filed on 11 May 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 Claims 13-19 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. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 May 2026 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 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 11 June 2026 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 2 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 4 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 5 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 6 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 7 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 8 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 9 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 10 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 11 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 12 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 13 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 19/270,212 Page 14 Art Unit: 2628
Prosecution Insights