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 Amendment
The applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 1 and 5
Cancelled: None
Added: None
Therefore, claims 1-8 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the office has to respectfully disagree with the argument that Hashimoto does not disclose the limitation “the one light emission cycle corresponding to single video signal which indicates an intensity of the light emitted by the light emitting element”. Hashimoto discloses displaying a image signal (video signal) during a display frame (Fig. 5 element Tf). The light emitting element are turned on and off during the display frame period. The display period is interpreted to read on one light emission cycle. The image signal displayed during the display frame period is interpreted to read on “single video signal”. The light emission intensity is set to the state to be constant in one frame (Para. 0061).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto (US 2003/0076338 A1, hereinafter “Hashimoto”).
As to claim 1, Hashimoto (Fig. 4) discloses a driving method for a display device having a plurality of light emitting elements arranged in a matrix (28R, 28G, 28B; Para. 0047, 0054), wherein
one or more non-light emission periods (Fig. 6 element Tf), in which the light emitting element does not emit (Tsf1, TSf2, Tsf4, Tsf5…), are inserted in one light emission cycle of the light emitting element (Para. 0057, one display frame is interpreted to read on one light emission cycle), the one light emission cycle corresponding to single video signal which indicates an intensity of the light emitted by the light emitting element (Para. 0062, the light emission intensity of frame is light emitted by the light emitting element. Furthermore, the image formed by combining the sub-frames in a display frame is interpreted to read on single video signal),
in a luminance change of the light emitting element at the emission cycle of T≡2π/ω (Tf; Para. 0057, 0076, Equation 10, display period frequency when ꞷ = pi), 1 is a largest natural number to satisfy 1ω≦ωth for a given threshold frequency ωth/2π (Para. 0076, it should hold true as the equation of the light distribution is similar to the equation in the instant application), the following holds:
PNG
media_image1.png
70
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where n is an integer and cn is a complex Fourier coefficient of luminance L(t) of the light emitting element in a section 0≦t<T (Tsf3; Para. 000057-0058, 0076, Equation 10).
As to claim 2, Hashimoto discloses the driving method according to claim 1, wherein the following holds:
PNG
media_image2.png
68
196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Para. 0076, Equation 10, it should hold true as the equation of the light distribution is similar to the equation in the instant application)
As to claim 4, Hashimoto discloses the driving method according to claim 1, wherein timing for inserting the non-light emission period depends on a luminance level of the light emitting element (Para. 0056-0062, The gradation level is achieved by setting luminance levels of each color for emission periods. Therefore, it is interpreted to read on the limitation “timing for inserting the non-light emission period depends on a luminance level of the light emitting element” as it is the result).
As to claim 5, Hashimoto (Fig. 6) discloses t driving method for a display device comprising the steps of:
controlling a light emitting element of the display device to operate a light emitting cycle (Tf) including k (1≦k) non-light emitting periods (Tsf1, TSf2, Tsf4, Tsf5…);
defining that the emission cycle of the light emitting element is T≡2π/ω (Tf; Para. 0057, 0076, Equation 10, display period frequency when ꞷ = pi);
defining luminance of the light emitting element in one emission cycle (0≦t<T) when the non-light emission period is not inserted is L0(t) (Para. 0057, when the light is turned off);
defining a start time of m-th non-light emission period (Tsf2) is tim (start time of Tsf2) and an end time is tfm (end time of Tsf2) where 1≦m≦k and 0<ti1<tf1<ti2<tf2<…<tik<tfk<T (Para. 0057);
defining the luminance L(t) of the light emitting element in one emission cycle as:
PNG
media_image3.png
48
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
representing L(t) by Fourier series expansion as:
PNG
media_image4.png
66
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Para. 0076; Equation 10)
determining the start time tim and the end time tfm of the non-light emission period to satisfy:
PNG
media_image5.png
52
256
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(
where for a given threshold frequency ωth/2π, l is a largest natural number to satisfy lω≦ωth, j is a natural number where 1≦j≦l, and εaj and εbj are threshold values (Para. 0068, 0077, the above equation will satisfy when a =2 and Ꜫ = 3. Furthermore, the claim does not define the threshold values).
As to claim 6, Hashimoto discloses the driving method according to claim 5, wherein
εaj and εbj are defined so as to satisfy:
PNG
media_image6.png
72
312
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Para. 0077)
As to claim 7, Hashimoto discloses the driving method according to claim 6, wherein
εaj and εbj are defined so as to satisfy:
PNG
media_image7.png
72
322
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Para. 0077)
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) 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0142733 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
As to claim 3, Hashimoto does not disclose the driving method according to claim 1, wherein the threshold frequency ωth/2π is 45Hz or more and 120Hz or less.
However, Kim teaches wherein the threshold frequency ωth/2π is 45Hz or more and 120Hz or less (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kim to drive a pixel at a low frequency in the device disclosed by Hashimoto. The motivation would have been to display a still image (Kim; Para. 0073).
As to claim 8, Hashimoto does not disclose the driving method according to claim 5, wherein
the threshold frequency ωth/2π is 45Hz or more and 120Hz or less.
However, Kim teaches wherein the threshold frequency ωth/2π is 45Hz or more and 120Hz or less (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kim to drive a pixel at a low frequency in the device disclosed by Hashimoto. The motivation would have been to display a still image (Kim; Para. 0073).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Dai et al. (US 2015/0129749 A1) discloses performing Fourier transformation to digital luminance signals (Abstract).
Tamaru (US 2016/0232857 A1) discloses performing Fourier transformation of emission signal (Fig. 9).
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 BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2625