DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amended independent claim 17 stands rejected over previously cited prior art reference to Sang et al. See the rejections below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-21 are allowed.
Claim 1 is allowed since none of the prior art alone or in combination suggests an optical compensation device, comprising:
a basic data sampling module for sampling a basic data of a subpixel disposed on a display panel; and
a compensation data generating module for generating compensation data for the subpixel by a polynomial regression method based on the sampled basic data,
wherein the basic data includes a maximum voltage, a minimum voltage, a step voltage, and a flicker value at the step voltage.
Claim 9 is allowed for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claims 3-8 and 11-16 are allowed for being dependent upon aforementioned independent claims 1 and 9.
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) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2013/0050504 A1 to Safaee-Rad et al (“Safaee”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2022/0059030 A1 to Sang et al (“Sang”).
As to claim 17, Safaee discloses an optical compensation device, comprising:
a basic data sampling module for sampling a basic data of a subpixel disposed on a display panel (¶ 0045-0057); and
a compensation data generating module for generating compensation data for the subpixel by a polynomial regression method based on the sampled basic data (¶ 0058).
Safaee fails to disclose wherein the optical compensation device includes:
a refresh period corresponding to a frame period, wherein a data voltage for driving the subpixel is applied to the display panel during the refresh period; and
a hold period for maintaining a voltage stored in a storage capacitor without applying the data voltage to the display panel.
Sang discloses wherein the optical compensation device includes:
a refresh period corresponding to a frame period, wherein a data voltage for driving the subpixel is applied to the display panel during the refresh period (¶ 0008, 0011 “One frame which is divided into a refresh section in which a data voltage is written and a hold section in which the data voltage written in the refresh section is maintained”); and
a hold period for maintaining a voltage stored in a storage capacitor without applying the data voltage to the display panel (¶ 0011 “a hold section in which the data voltage written in the refresh section is maintained”; ¶ 0058, “The capacitor Cst may be connected or formed between the first node N1 and a fourth node N4. The capacitor Cst may store or maintain the provided data signal Vdata”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Safaee with the teachings of Sang wherein the optical compensation device includes: a refresh period corresponding to a frame period, wherein a data voltage for driving the subpixel is applied to the display panel during the refresh period; and a hold period for maintaining a voltage stored in a storage capacitor without applying the data voltage to the display panel, as suggested by Sang thereby similarly using known configurations for driving displays in the display of Safaee.
As to claim 18, Sang discloses wherein when the subpixel is driven, a bias voltage is applied to a driving transistor of the subpixel, and wherein the bias voltage is compensated by the compensation data (¶ 0123).
As to claim 19, Sang discloses wherein the bias voltage is applied during the refresh period or the hold period (¶ 0123).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2013/0050504 A1 to Safaee-Rad et al (“Safaee”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2022/0059030 A1 to Sang et al (“Sang”), and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2022/0059036 A1 to Sang et al (“Sang 036”).
As to claim 20, Safaee in view of Sang fails to disclose wherein when the subpixel is driven, a parking voltage is applied to a data supply transistor of the subpixel, and wherein the parking voltage is compensated by the compensation data.
Sang 036 wherein when the subpixel is driven, a parking voltage is applied to a data supply transistor of the subpixel, and wherein the parking voltage is compensated by the compensation data (¶ 0111).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Safaee in view of Sang with the teachings of Sang 036 wherein when the subpixel is driven, a parking voltage is applied to a data supply transistor of the subpixel, and wherein the parking voltage is compensated by the compensation data, as suggested by Sang 036 thereby similarly using known configurations for applying parking voltage for compensating pixel luminance.
As to claim 21, Sang 036 discloses wherein the parking voltage is applied during the hold period (¶ 0111).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICHOLAS J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6PM.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights