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 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/23/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “timing controller,” “data driver,” “data distributor,” and “luminance corrector” in claims 1 and 14, of which claims 2-13 and 15-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph 0056, discloses that the “block, unit, and/or module are/is physically implemented by a logic circuit, an individual component, a microprocessor, a hard wire circuit, a memory element, a line connection, and other electronic circuits.”
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0013528 to Jang et al. (Jang).
As to claims 1 and 14, Jang discloses a display device (Fig. 1; Para. 0051-0052, display device) comprising:
a display panel comprising pixels arranged in a first direction (Fig. 1; Para. 0054, pixel unit, 100);
a timing controller configured to generate output data based on input image data (Fig. 1; Para. 0066, timing controller, 400);
a data driver configured to convert the output data into a data signal, and to output the data signal to at least one output line (Fig. 1; Para. 0061-0063, data driver, 300, data voltage/signal);
a data distributor configured to supply the data signal to data lines connected to the display panel based on any one of a first control signal or a second control signal supplied from the timing controller (Fig. 1; Para. 0061, data driver, 300, data control signal); and
a luminance corrector configured to generate compensation data for correcting one of the pixels supplied with the data signal relatively late (Fig. 1, 4, 5; Para. 0068-0069, luminance corrector, 500; Para. 0087-0095).
14. An electronic device comprising: a processor configured to provide input image data (Para. 0046-0047; Para. 0052, smart phone, tablet, smart pad); and a display device configured to display an image based on the input image data (Fig. 1; Para. 0051-0052, display device).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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(s) 2-6 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0035734 to Lee et al. (Lee).
As to claims 2 and 15, Jang discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the pixels comprise first pixels comprising: a (1_1)th pixel configured to be supplied with the data signal corresponding to the first control signal; and a (1_2)th pixel configured to be supplied with the data signal corresponding to the second control signal that is different from the first control signal.
Lee teaches wherein the pixels comprise first pixels comprising:
a (1_1)th pixel configured to be supplied with the data signal corresponding to the first control signal (Fig. 6, 7; Para. 0059-0064, DMUX1 supplied to pixel though data line, D1); and
a (1_2)th pixel configured to be supplied with the data signal corresponding to the second control signal that is different from the first control signal (Fig. 6, 7; Para. 0059-0064, DMUX2 supplied to pixel though data line, D2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Jang to include the pixel driving of Lee because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Jang as modified the pixel driving of Lee can yield a predictable result of providing an organic light emitting display capable of preventing a current deviation from being generated between pixels displaying the same color by designing a demultiplexer (demux) switching circuit and demux switching control signals so that the number of times a kickback voltage influences the pixels displaying the same color is the same for each such pixel. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the display device of Jang the ability to use the pixel driving of Lee since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to claims 3 and 16, Jang and Lee disclose the display device of claim 2. Jang does not expressly disclose wherein the (1_2)th pixel comprises the one of the pixels supplied with the data signal relatively late as compared with the (1_1)th pixel.
Lee discloses wherein the (1_2)th pixel comprises the one of the pixels supplied with the data signal relatively late as compared with the (1_1)th pixel (Fig. 7; Para. 0059-0064, DMUX1 v DMUX2). This combination is obvious to one skilled in the art for at least the reasons set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 4, Jang and Lee disclose the display device of claim 3. Jang does not expressly disclose wherein the pixels further comprise second pixels sequentially arranged in the first direction, and wherein, in one frame, the second pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in a same direction as a direction in which the first pixels are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal.
Lee discloses wherein the pixels further comprise second pixels sequentially arranged in the first direction, and wherein, in one frame, the second pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in a same direction as a direction in which the first pixels are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal (Fig. 6, 7; Para. 0059-0064, data lines D1, D3 and D5 are controlled DMUX1 and D2, D4, and D6 are controlled by DMUX2). This combination is obvious to one skilled in the art for at least the reasons set forth in claim 2.
As to claims 5 and 18, Jang and Lee disclose the display device of claim 4. Jang does not expressly disclose wherein the second pixels comprise: a (2_1)th pixel configured to be supplied with the data signal corresponding to the first control signal; and a (2_2)th pixel configured to be supplied with the data signal, which corresponds to the second control signal, relatively late as compared with the (2_1)th pixel.
Lee discloses wherein the second pixels comprise:
a (2_1)th pixel configured to be supplied with the data signal corresponding to the first control signal (Fig. 6, 7; Para. 0059-0064, DMUX1 supplied to pixel though data line, D1; Fig. 4; Para. 0042, pixel array, 14; secondary pixels as an additional row below the row shown in Fig. 6); and
a (2_2)th pixel configured to be supplied with the data signal, which corresponds to the second control signal, relatively late as compared with the (2_1)th pixel (Fig. 6, 7; Para. 0059-0064, DMUX2 supplied to pixel though data line, D2; Fig. 4; Para. 0042, pixel array, 14; secondary pixels as an additional row below the row shown in Fig. 6).
This combination is obvious to one skilled in the art for at least the reasons set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 6, Jang and Lee disclose the display device of claim 5. Jang does not expressly disclose wherein the (1_1)th pixel and the (2_1)th pixel are adjacent to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction, and wherein the (1_2)th pixel and the (2_2)th pixel are adjacent to each other in the second direction.
Lee discloses wherein the (1_1)th pixel and the (2_1)th pixel are adjacent to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction, and wherein the (1_2)th pixel and the (2_2)th pixel are adjacent to each other in the second direction (Para. 0042, pixel array, 14; secondary pixels as an additional row below the row shown in Fig. 6). This combination is obvious to one skilled in the art for at least the reasons set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 17, Jang and Lee disclose the electronic device of claim 16. Jang does not expressly disclose wherein the pixels further comprise second pixels that are sequentially arranged in the first direction, and that are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal according to an order in which the second pixels are arranged in a same direction as a direction in which the first pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in one frame.
Lee teaches wherein the pixels further comprise second pixels that are sequentially arranged in the first direction, and that are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal according to an order in which the second pixels are arranged in a same direction as a direction in which the first pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in one frame (Fig. 6, 7; Para. 0059-0064, data lines D1, D3 and D5 are controlled DMUX1 and D2, D4, and D6 are controlled by DMUX2). This combination is obvious to one skilled in the art for at least the reasons set forth in claim 15.
Claim(s) 7, 10-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Lee as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0372047 to Kim et al. (Kim).
As to claims 7 and 19, Jang and Lee disclose the display device of claim 6, but do not expressly disclose wherein, in a next frame after the one frame, the first pixels and the second pixels are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal in a direction that is opposite to the direction in which the first pixels and the second pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in the one frame.
Kim teaches wherein, in a next frame after the one frame, the first pixels and the second pixels are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal in a direction that is opposite to the direction in which the first pixels and the second pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in the one frame (Fig. 1, 2; Para. 0020, 0057-0066, driving method of FIG. 1 may alternately perform the scanning (i.e., the data writing) and light emitting operations by the sequential driving technique in the first and second directions for each image frame FRAME(2k−1) and FRAME(2k)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Jang and Lee to include the pixel driving sequence of Kim because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Jang and Lee as modified by the pixel driving sequence of Kim can yield a predictable result of power consumption may decrease, and lifespan of the pixels may increase. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the display device of Jang and Lee the ability to use the pixel driving sequence of Kim since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to claim 10, Jang and Lee disclose the display device of claim 3, but do not expressly disclose wherein the pixels further comprise second pixels sequentially arranged in the first direction, and wherein, in one frame, the second pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in a direction opposite to a direction in which the first pixels are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal.
Kim teaches wherein the pixels further comprise second pixels sequentially arranged in the first direction, and wherein, in one frame, the second pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in a direction opposite to a direction in which the first pixels are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal(Fig. 1, 2; Para. 0020, 0057-0066, driving method of FIG. 1 may alternately perform the scanning (i.e., the data writing) and light emitting operations by the sequential driving technique in the first and second directions for each image frame FRAME(2k−1) and FRAME(2k)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Jang and Lee to include the pixel driving sequence of Kim because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display device of Jang and Lee as modified by the pixel driving sequence of Kim can yield a predictable result of power consumption may decrease, and lifespan of the pixels may increase. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the display device of Jang and Lee the ability to use the pixel driving sequence of Kim since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to claim 11, Jang, Lee, and Kim disclose the display device of claim 10. Jang does not expressly disclose wherein the second pixels comprise: a (2_2)th pixel configured to receive the data signal corresponding to the second control signal; and a (2_1)th pixel configured to receive the data signal, which corresponds to the first control signal, relatively late as compared with the (2_2)th pixel.
Lee discloses wherein the second pixels comprise:
a (2_2)th pixel receive the data signal corresponding to the second control signal (Fig. 6, 7; Para. 0059-0064, DMUX1 supplied to pixel though data line, D1; Fig. 4; Para. 0042, pixel array, 14; secondary pixels as an additional row below the row shown in Fig. 6); and
a (2_1)th pixel configured to receive the data signal, which corresponds to the first control signal, relatively late as compared with the (2_2)th pixel (Fig. 6, 7; Para. 0059-0064, DMUX2 supplied to pixel though data line, D2; Fig. 4; Para. 0042, pixel array, 14; secondary pixels as an additional row below the row shown in Fig. 6).
This combination is obvious to one skilled in the art for at least the reasons set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 12, Jang, Lee, and Kim disclose the display device of claim 11. Jang does not expressly disclose wherein the (1_1)th pixel and the (2_1)th pixel are adjacent to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction, and wherein the (1_2)th pixel and the (2_2)th pixel are adjacent to each other in the second direction.
Lee discloses wherein the (1_1)th pixel and the (2_1)th pixel are adjacent to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction, and wherein the (1_2)th pixel and the (2_2)th pixel are adjacent to each other in the second direction (Para. 0042, pixel array, 14; secondary pixels as an additional row below the row shown in Fig. 6). This combination is obvious to one skilled in the art for at least the reasons set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 13, Jang, Lee, and Kim disclose the display device of claim 12. Jang and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein, in a next frame after the one frame, the first pixels and the second pixels are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal in a direction opposite to the direction in which the first pixels and the second pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in the one frame.
Kim teaches wherein, in a next frame after the one frame, the first pixels and the second pixels are configured to be sequentially supplied with the data signal in a direction opposite to the direction in which the first pixels and the second pixels are configured to be supplied with the data signal in the one frame (Fig. 1, 2; Para. 0020, 0057-0066, driving method of FIG. 1 may alternately perform the scanning (i.e., the data writing) and light emitting operations by the sequential driving technique in the first and second directions for each image frame FRAME(2k−1) and FRAME(2k)). This combination is obvious to one skilled in the art for at least the reasons set forth in claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa S Landis whose telephone number is (571)270-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (571)272-3017. 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.
/LISA S LANDIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights