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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites A) “wherein applying the second time voltage to the second pixel comprises reducing second voltage of the second pixel relative to the first voltage of the first pixel.” Claim 1 recites B)“apply a second voltage to the second pixel based on the first target refresh rate, the second gray level, and a second OC LUT”. It appears that there is no support for A) and B) in conjunction. Claim 9 is rejected since it depends from claim 8.
Claim 22 recites C) “the first voltage and the third voltage are different”. Claim 1 recites “apply a first voltage to the first pixel based on the first target refresh rate, the first gray level, and a first optical calibration lookup table (OC LUT)” and D) “apply a third voltage to the first pixel based on the second target refresh rate, the first gray level, and the first OC LUT” (See also Applicant’s publication [0062]). It appears that there is no support for C) and D) in conjunction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 1-2, 11, 17, 18 and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0143803 (hereinafter Lee).
Consider claim 1, Lee teaches an electronic device, comprising: an electronic display panel comprising a plurality of pixels including a first pixel and a second pixel (Figure 1, display 160 and corresponding pixels); and processing circuitry configured to: process first input image data having a first target refresh rate and second input image data having a second target refresh rate (Figure 3E, 60Hz and 120Hz), wherein the first input image data comprises a first gray level for the first pixel and a second gray level for the second pixel (Figure 3E, 255 and 1 gray levels at 60Hz), and wherein the second input image data comprises the first gray level for the first pixel and the second gray level for the second pixel (Figure 3E, 255 and 1 gray levels at 120Hz); apply a first voltage to the first pixel based on the first target refresh rate, the first gray level, and a first optical calibration lookup table (OC LUT) (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 255 gray level for 60Hz); apply a second voltage to the second pixel based on the first target refresh rate, the second gray level, and a second OC LUT (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 1 gray level for 60Hz), wherein the first OC LUT is different than the second OC LUT (values of 255 with respect to 1); apply a third voltage to the first pixel based on the second target refresh rate, the first gray level, and the first OC LUT (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 255 for 120Hz. [0103], grayscales values of some parts to be equal to each other); and apply a fourth voltage to the second pixel based on the second target refresh rate, the second gray level, and a third OC LUT (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 1 for 120Hz), wherein the third OC LUT is different than the first OC LUT and the second OC LUT (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 1 gray level for 120Hz and 60Hz and values corresponding to 255 gray level for 60hz).
Consider claim 2, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein applying the first voltage comprises providing a first driving current to the first pixel ([0049-0050], voltage and corresponding driving current (see also figure 3E)) and applying the second voltage comprises providing a second driving current to the second pixel ([0049-0050], voltage and corresponding driving current (see also figure 3E)).
Consider claim 11, Lee teaches tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media comprising instructions that [0180], when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to [0180]: select a first set of values from a first lookup table (LUT) to generate a first voltage code for a first display pixel of an electronic display based on a first refresh rate and a first gray level (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 255 gray level for 60Hz); select a second set of values from a second LUT different than the first LUT to generate a second voltage code for a second display pixel of the electronic display based on the first refresh rate and a second gray level (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 1 gray level for 60Hz); select a third set of values from the first LUT to generate a third voltage code for the first display pixel based on a second refresh rate and the first gray level (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 255 for 120Hz. [0103], grayscales values of some parts to be equal to each other); and select a fourth set of values from a third LUT different than the first LUT and the second LUT to generate a fourth voltage code for the second display pixel based on the second refresh rate and the second gray level (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 1 for 120Hz).
Consider claim 17, Lee teaches an electronic device, comprising: processing circuitry configured to receive and process input image data and determine refresh rate information based on the input image data (Figure 3E, 60Hz and 120Hz); and an electronic display, comprising: lookup table (LUT) selection circuitry configured to receive indications of a first refresh rate and a second refresh rate based on the refresh rate information and select more than one LUT based on the first refresh rate and the second refresh rate (Figure 3E, 60hz, 120hz and tables for gray/brightness); and gamma correction circuitry configured to use the more than one LUT to generate voltage codes for a plurality of pixels ([0103], gamma values of grayscale… to reduce difference in optical characteristic on screen); the gamma correction circuitry being configured to: generate a first voltage code based on a first LUT, the first refresh rate, and a first gray level (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 255 gray level for 60Hz); generate a second voltage code based on a second LUT, the first refresh rate, and a second gray level, wherein the second LUT is different from the first LUT (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 1 gray level for 60Hz); and generate a third voltage code based on the first LUT, the second refresh rate, and the first gray level (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 255 for 120Hz. [0103], grayscales values of some parts to be equal to each other); and generate a fourth voltage code based on a third LUT, the second refresh rate, and the second gray level, wherein the third LUT is different from the first LUT and the second LUT (Figure 3E, values corresponding to 1 for 120Hz).
Consider claim 18, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 17. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the gamma correction circuitry is configured to select values from the more than one LUT based on a first set of conditions associated with the input image data (Figure 3E, tables based on gray, brightness and frequency).
Consider claim 20, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 18. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the first set of conditions comprises a plurality of global display brightness values (Figure 3E, brightness values such as “450” and “300”).
Consider claim 21, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 17. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to provide a first driving current to a first pixel of the plurality of pixels based on the first voltage code ([0049-0050], voltage and corresponding driving current (see also figure 3E)) and configured to provide a second driving current to a second pixel of the plurality of pixels based on the second voltage code ([0049-0050], voltage and corresponding driving current (see also figure 3E)).
Consider claim 22, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches the first voltage and the third voltage are different (“80” at 255 gray, 450 brightness and 60hz; “79” at 255 gray, 2 brightness and 120hz).
Consider claim 23, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 11. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the third voltage code is the same as the first voltage code (“80” at 255 gray, 450 brightness and 60hz; “80” at 255 gray, 450 brightness and 120hz).
Consider claim 24, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 17. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the first voltage code is the same as the third voltage code (“80” at 255 gray, 450 brightness and 60hz; “80” at 255 gray, 450 brightness and 120hz).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0031984 (hereinafter Wang).
Consider claim 4, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first pixel, the second pixel or both are configured to emit at an emission frequency comprising a multiple of 100 Hertz and configured to refresh at a refresh rate comprising a divisor of the emission frequency.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Wang teaches a low-frequency display mode and high-frequency display mode in [0058] and further teaches the first pixel, the second pixel or both are configured to emit at an emission frequency comprising a multiple of 100 Hertz and configured to refresh at a refresh rate comprising a divisor of the emission frequency ([0058], switching frequency is relatively high, for example, the switching frequency of the images is 50 Hz at this time, and the pixel circuit is in the second display mode. Figure 4c and [0120] refer to two light-emitting phase s3 for the second display mode. Thus, emission frequency is 100 Hz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide 50Hz and 100Hz as taught by Wang in order to achieve a high frequency display mode as suggested in [0058] and [0120].
Consider claim 5, Lee and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 4. In addition, Wang teaches the refresh rate comprises 50 Hertz [0058], see motivation to combine in claim 4.
Consider claim 13, it includes the limitations of claim 5 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Wang as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chang U.S. Patent Publication No. 10,964,259 (hereinafter Chang).
Consider claim 6, Lee and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Lee and Wang do not appear to specifically disclose the first pixel, the second pixel or both are configured to emit at an additional emission frequency of 480 Hertz and configured to refresh at an additional refresh rate comprising a divisor of 480.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Chang teaches wherein the first pixel, the second pixel, or both are configured to emit at an additional emission frequency of 480 Hertz and configured to refresh at an additional refresh rate comprising a divisor of 480 (Figure 3, emission frequency is 480Hz and frame rate is 60Hz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a refresh rate a divisor of the emission frequency as taught by Chang with the benefit that the amount of variation in the emission frequency corresponding to the frame rate can be reduced by adjusting the emission pulse cycle time of the frame rate or increasing the number of emission pulses as suggested by Chang.
Consider claim 7, Lee, Wang and Chang teach all the limitations of claim 6. In addition, Chang teaches wherein the additional refresh rate comprises 60 Hertz (Figure 3, 60Hz, see motivation to combine in claim 6).
Consider claim 14, it includes the limitations of claim 7 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Wang and Chang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0020277 (hereinafter Lee2).
Consider claim 8, Lee, Wang and Chang teach all the limitations of claim 6.
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose wherein applying the second voltage to the second pixel comprises reducing the second voltage of the second pixel relative to the first voltage of the first pixel.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Lee2 teaches a charging ratio compensator in [0053] and further teaches wherein applying the second voltage to the second pixel comprises reducing the second voltage of the second pixel relative to the first voltage of the first pixel ([0054], the target time may be controlled by changing a driving frequency of the display device 100. For example, in case of the display device 100 driven at a frequency of 120 Hz, the target time during which the reference data voltage RDV is provided to the pixel PX may be controlled by changing the driving frequency to 30 Hz. [0056], when the display device 100 is driven in a high frequency, the charging voltage VC may decrease as the charging time decreases. The charging ratio compensator 120 may change the voltage level of the reference data voltage RDV provided during the charging time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce voltage as taught by Lee2 in order to consider a change of driving frequency as suggested in [0053-0054].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Wang, Chang and Lee2 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0002641 (hereinafter Kim).
Consider claim 9, Lee, Wang, Chang and Lee2 teach all the limitations of claim 8. In addition, Lee2 teaches wherein reducing the second voltage applied to the second pixel relative to the first voltage of the first pixel [0054] and [0056].
Lee does not appear to specifically mention brightness reduction of the pixel.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Kim teaches frame frequency is changed in [0054] and further teaches causes brightness reduction of the pixel ([0054], The charging time at the frame frequency of 40 Hz is longer than the charging time at the frame frequency of 60 Hz. If the high potential power voltage VDD is maintained at the reference level VDD1 when the frame frequency is changed from 60 Hz to 40 Hz, a luminance change occurs due to a difference of the charging amount as in the conventional art. However, if the high potential power voltage VDD is lowered to the adjusted level VDD2 when the frame frequency is changed from 60 Hz to 40 Hz, luminance changes are minimized. In addition, see the comparison between Applicant’s figure 10 and figures 1 and 6 of Kim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce brightness or luminance in order to solve degradation of the display due to a change in frame frequency as suggested in [0044].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chang.
Consider claim 15, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 11.
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first refresh rate comprises a refresh rate that is not a divisor of a 400 Hertz emission frequency, a 500 Hertz emission frequency, or a 600 Hertz emission frequency.
However, Chang teaches wherein the first refresh rate comprises a refresh rate that is not a divisor of a 400 Hertz emission frequency, a 500 Hertz emission frequency, or a 600 Hertz emission frequency (Figure 3, frame rate is 96Hz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular refresh rate as taught by Chang in figure 3 with the benefit that the amount of variation in the emission frequency corresponding to the frame rate can be reduced by adjusting the emission pulse cycle time of the frame rate or increasing the number of emission pulses as suggested by Chang.
Consider claim 16, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 15.
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the second refresh rate comprises a refresh rate that is a divisor of a 480 Hertz emission frequency.
However, Chang teaches wherein the second refresh rate comprises a refresh rate that is a divisor of a 480 Hertz emission frequency (Figure 3, emission frequency is 480Hz and frame rate is 60Hz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a refresh rate a divisor of the emission frequency as taught by Chang with the benefit that the amount of variation in the emission frequency corresponding to the frame rate can be reduced by adjusting the emission pulse cycle time of the frame rate or increasing the number of emission pulses as suggested by Chang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO W FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-5512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm, EST.
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 A 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.
/ROBERTO W FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621