DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 12/9/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 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 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 KR 10-2008-0050878 to Kim et al (“Kim”).
As to claim 4, As to claim 1, 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 when a data voltage for driving the subpixel is applied to the display panel; and
a hold period for maintaining a voltage stored in a storage capacitor without applying the data voltage to the display panel.
Kim discloses wherein the optical compensation device includes:
a refresh period when a data voltage for driving the subpixel is applied to the display panel (¶ 0028); and
a hold period for maintaining a voltage stored in a storage capacitor without applying the data voltage to the display panel (¶ 0019).
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 Kim wherein the optical compensation device includes: a refresh period when a data voltage for driving the subpixel is applied to the display panel; 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 Kim thereby similarly using known configurations for driving displays in the display of Safaee.
Claim(s) 18-19 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 in view of KR 10-2008-0050878 to Kim et al (“Kim”), and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2022/0059030 A1 to Sang et al (“Sang”).
As to claim 18, Safaee in view of Kim fails to disclose 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.
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).
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 Kim with the teachings of Sang 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, as suggested by Sang thereby similarly using known configurations applying bias voltage to a pixel circuit for removing luminance deviation.
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 in view of KR 10-2008-0050878 to Kim et al (“Kim”), and further 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 Kim and 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 Kim and 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
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