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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the response, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the amendment to claim 15 adding “non-transitory” and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-11 the applicant argues that Eom fails to teach “a grayscale value” as claimed.
First, on page 8, the applicant states that Eom classifies brightness steps, but does not involve the determination of grayscale values for individual pixels. The examiner notes that the claims do not require the “determination of grayscale values for individual pixels” but rather only says that grayscale values for each pixel is “obtained” and then the “determining” step is only for “a pixel point” not each one. As cited in the rejection, paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and Figures 2 and 4-5 of Eom obtains an image signal, and thus “obtains” grayscale values for an image, i.e. each pixel. Eom then uses a conversion of grayscale to luminance (Figure 2) to then realize the signals for driving the display (Figures 4-5, for example). Thus, Eom indirectly uses the input grayscale values of an image to determine new target grayscale values as brightness signals. On page 9 of the response the applicant states that the Office Action considered the brightness steps in Eom to be grayscale values, however, this ignores the explanation in the office action as to the correspondence between the grayscale values and the brightness steps as explained above, where the brightness steps correspond to the grayscale values, and thus the use of the brightness steps is indirectly using the grayscale values. See also paragraph [0050] of Eom, where Eom uses luminance/grayscale, indicating their interchangeability, and see specifically paragraph [0032] of Eom, which was used in the rejection, which states:
Then, a lookup table representing a correlation between luminance for grayscale and RGB voltages at 300 cd/m.sup.2 is created. Thereafter, in the in-use environment, for example, when a change (adjustment) of brightness to 100 cd/m.sup.2 is requested, an RGB voltage value is changed to an RGB register value at 100 cd/m.sup.2 by searching for an RGB voltage value according to a luminance for grayscale at 100 cd/m.sup.2 from the look up table thus making it possible to apply a gamma calculated at 100 cd/m.sup.2 corresponding to the RGB register value.
Further, on pages 9-10, the applicant argues that Figure 7A and paragraph [0039] of Eom does not disclose the replacement of grayscale values for individual pixels, however, these arguments are based off of the same arguments presented above with regards to grayscale values, where the brightness ranges of Eom correspond to grayscale values, and the claims do NOT require the replacement of grayscale values for individual pixels [the claim only recites for a single target pixel]. Also, the claims do not require one-to-one correspondence, and thus the use of ranges of values still provides for obtaining new values.
At the bottom of page 10 and continuing on page 11, the applicant argues that Eom uses the concept of “off duty” and does not mention changing the “display frequency” such as “frame rate” or “refresh rate” however, the claims do not recite that the claimed “display frequency” is the “frame rate” or “refresh rate” and, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the changing of the duty ratio adjusts the frequency at which the pulses are applied as specifically shown in Figure 5 of Eom used in the rejection [see the normal driving vs the AID driving], and thus the “display frequency” is adjusted as claimed. If the applicant wants “display frequency” to mean “frame rate” or “refresh rate” then one of those terms should be used in the claims.
The applicant concludes their arguments on page 11 by stating that Eom’s key solution is for “brightness zones” rather than performing “pixel-by-pixel determination of grayscale values” however, the applicant is once again reminded that the claim only requires any steps after the “obtaining” step to occur for a single pixel. And thus, for a single pixel, there is an instance where Eom maps that single pixel into a new value within that brightness range that corresponds to the grayscale values as explained above. There is no requirement in the claims for this to occur for every individual pixel nor is there any limitation requiring the preset correspondence to directly map individual grayscale values to target grayscale values.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, 13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eom et al. (US 2016/0171932).
Regarding claim 1, Eom et al. disclose a driving method for a display panel (Figures 5-7B), comprising:
obtaining a grayscale value of each pixel point in an image to be displayed (Figures 7A-7B, the luminance (brightness) step is the grayscale value, see paragraphs [0032]-[0033] for example. Figure 4 shows a full image and Figure 5 shows that driving for a full image [each pixel point].);
determining a pixel point as a target pixel point in response to the grayscale value of the pixel point being less than a preset grayscale threshold (Figure 7A shows that each pixel point is determined as a target pixel point [reference luminance] in the AID dimming section that is below the threshold of “110” in the luminance (brightness) step as shown.);
obtaining, based on a preset correspondence (Table in Figure 7A), a target grayscale value and a target display frequency that correspond to the target pixel point (Figure 7A shows that for each pixel point of 20-100 that the target grayscale value [reference luminance] is obtained in the table as 110, and a target display frequency [duty ratio] is also obtained for each pixel point of 20-100.), wherein the target grayscale value is greater than the grayscale value of the target pixel point (Figure 7A shows that the target grayscale value [reference luminance] is 110 which is greater than 100, for example, [grayscale value of the target pixel point].), and the target display frequency is less than or equal to a first design display frequency of the target pixel point (Figure 7A shows that the 11.1% is the off duty for the luminance step 100, which means that the on duty is 89%, which is less than 100% which is a “first design display frequency” [for normal driving].); and
displaying, based on the target grayscale value and the target display frequency, the target pixel point in the image (Figure 4 shows that an image is displayed using the AID driving principle with respect to using the table of Figure 7A.); wherein
the obtaining, based on the preset correspondence, the target grayscale value and the target display frequency that correspond to the target pixel point comprises:
determining, based on the preset correspondence, the target grayscale value and the target display frequency that correspond to the grayscale value of the target pixel point (Figure 7A shows that the preset correspondence, i.e. table, is used to determine the target grayscale value and the target display frequency that correspond to the grayscale value of the target pixel point.).
Regarding claim 3, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining a low grayscale range (Figure 7A shows the “AID dimming section” which is a low grayscale range.);
assigning a target grayscale value to each grayscale value within the low grayscale range (Figures 7A shows a target grayscale value of 110 to each of the values for 20-100.);
determining, based on a first design display frequency of a pixel point with a grayscale value within the low grayscale range, a target display frequency corresponding to the target grayscale value assigned to the grayscale value (Figures 7A shows that based on 100% duty ratio, i.e. a first design display frequency, that a duty ratio is determined for the corresponding target grayscale value so as to create a target display frequency.); and
establishing the correspondence by associating the each grayscale value within the low grayscale range with the target grayscale value and the target display frequency that correspond to the grayscale value (Figure 7A shows that the correspondence is established in the chart.).
Regarding claim 4, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 3, wherein target grayscale values corresponding to respective ones of grayscale values within the low grayscale range are at least partially the same (Figure 7 shows that all of the values in the AID dimiming section are 110 and thus are at least “partially the same” as claimed.); or
target grayscale values corresponding to respective ones of grayscale values within the low grayscale range are mutually different.
Regarding claim 7, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the first design display frequency of the target pixel point is 2 to 4 times the target display frequency (Figure 7A, since, for example, 100% on duty ratio is the first design display frequency, and at 50 the duty ratio is 58% off, meaning 42% on, where 100 is 2-4 times greater than 42.).
Regarding claim 8, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a display frequency of a pixel point, in the image to be displayed, with a grayscale value greater than the grayscale threshold is a second design display frequency (Figure 7A, the values for the smart dimming section are grayscale value greater than the grayscale threshold of 110, and have second design display frequency.);
the first design display frequency of the target pixel point is the same as the second design display frequency (Figure 7A shows that the duty ratio is 100% on for the smart dimming section and thus the first and second are the same.); or
the first design display frequency of the target pixel point is greater than the second design display frequency.
Regarding claim 9, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 8, wherein before the displaying, based on the target grayscale value and the target display frequency, the target pixel point in the image, the method further comprises:
determining, based on the target grayscale value, a grayscale voltage corresponding to the target grayscale value (Figure 7A, grayscale voltages are determined based on the reference luminance, see paragraph [0032].).
Regarding claim 10, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the displaying, based on the target grayscale value and the target display frequency, the target pixel point in the image comprises:
displaying, according to the target display frequency, the target pixel point in the image by using the grayscale voltage corresponding to the target grayscale value (Figure 4 shows that an image is displayed using the driving principles with respect to using the table of Figure 7A. See also paragraphs [0032] and [0037].).
Regarding claim 11, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 8, further comprising:
determining a grayscale voltage of each pixel point, in the image to be displayed, with a grayscale value greater than the grayscale threshold (Figure 7A shows the values for the smart dimming section are above the threshold of 110 as shown. See paragraphs [0032] and [0037], grayscale voltages will be determined for these values as well.); and
displaying, according to the second design display frequency, the pixel point, in the image, with the grayscale value greater than the grayscale threshold by using the grayscale voltage of the each pixel point (Figure 4 shows that an image is displayed using the driving principles with respect to using the table of Figure 7A and thus the “second design display frequency” will be used for the “smart” section. See also paragraphs [0032] and [0037].).
Regarding claim 13, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the grayscale voltage of the target grayscale value is greater than a grayscale voltage of a low grayscale value corresponding to the target grayscale value (Figure 7A the values for the smart section are larger than the low grayscale voltages.).
Regarding claim 15, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore Eom et al. also disclose a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, implements the driving method (Paragraph [0056].).
Regarding claim 16, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore Eom et al. also disclose a display apparatus (Figure 1), comprising: a display panel (Figure 1, 10); one or more processors (Paragraph [0056]); and a storage device, configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, enables the one or more processors to implement the driving method (Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (US 2016/0171932) in view of Hanamoto (JP 2011-130133 A).
Regarding claim 5, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the display panel is provided with 256 grayscales (Paragraph [0033], “255 grayscale points” where 0 is the 256th.).
Eom et al. fail to teach wherein the grayscale threshold is less than or equal to 8.
Hanamoto discloses wherein a display panel is provided with 256 grayscales, and a grayscale threshold is less than or equal to 8 (See page 19 of the provided document, the 4th paragraph, which recites: “In step S404, if the luminance value of the pixel to be processed is less than the predetermined threshold value H, the process proceeds to step S405. If not, the process proceeds to step S408. For example, when the number of gradations of the processing target pixel is 8 bits (256 gradations) and the threshold value H is 8, the luminance value of the target pixel is less than the threshold value when the luminance value is 7 or less. In this case, it is determined that the threshold value is exceeded.”).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Eom et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a method for having divided dimming sections, and Hanamoto performs the same function as it does separately of providing a grayscale threshold of 8.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the display panel being provided with 256 grayscales and the grayscale threshold being 8.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Eom et al. and Hanamoto disclose the method according to claim 5, wherein an absolute value of a difference between the grayscale value of the target pixel point and the target grayscale value corresponding to the target pixel point is greater than or equal to 4, and is less than or equal to 10 (Eom et al.: Figure 7A, when the grayscale value is 110 and the target grayscale value is 100, the difference is 10, which is greater than or equal to 4, and is less than or equal to 10.).
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (US 2016/0171932) in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0090523).
Regarding claim 12, Eom et al. disclose the method according to claim 8.
Eom et al. fail to teach wherein the first design display frequency of the target pixel point is greater than or equal to 120 Hz.
Huang et al. disclose wherein a first design display frequency of a target pixel point is greater than or equal to 120 Hz (Paragraph [0078]: “A VSYNC frequency may be any applicable frequency that enables operation of a display device and may be, for example, 60 Hz, 90 Hz, 120 Hz, 240 Hz, or the like.”).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Eom et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a method for having divided dimming sections, and Huang et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a first design display frequency greater than or equal to 120 Hz.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the first design display frequency of the target pixel point is greater than or equal to 120 Hz.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
2 June 2026
Prosecution Insights