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 .
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.
Claims 1, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0312849 to Park; in view of US 2019/0235329 to Arai et al.; further in view of US 2021/0099682 to Takahashi et al.
As per claim 1, Park teaches a method for compensating a display defect, comprising:
acquiring (Fig. 1, 210) a first captured image (Fig. 3, S102) of a display panel (Fig. 1, 100);
identifying a defective region (Fig. 3, S104) and a normal region (Fig. 3, pixels not detected as defective in S104) of the display panel based on the first captured image (Fig. 3, S103, “The luminance deviation compensation device detects defective pixels based on the analysis result of the luminance characteristics of the pixels”), wherein the defective region comprises a defective pixel point and the normal region comprises a normal pixel point;
acquiring a second captured image (Fig. 4, S14) of the display panel at a preset brightness level (Fig. 4, S13) when the display panel is in a display state;
obtaining a compensation pixel value for the defective pixel point at the preset brightness level (Fig. 3, S105, compensation data) by performing an interpolation computation on a pixel value of the normal pixel point of the second captured image (paragraph 13, “interpolate the removed measured luminance value or compensation data of the defective pixel using data of neighboring pixels adjacent to the defective pixel”);
repeatedly acquiring compensation pixel values for all defective pixel points (paragraph 84, “re-write compensation data for each pixel, which includes the compensation data of the defective pixels adjusted by the interpolation method”); and
updating a pixel value (Fig. 3, S110, “adjust compensation data”, ) of the defective pixel point (paragraph 13, “interpolate the … compensation data of the defective pixel using data of neighboring pixels adjacent to the defective pixel”) corresponding to the preset brightness level with the compensation pixel value, to form a compensation image (paragraph 83, “The final compensation data includes the compensation data of the normal pixels, and the compensation data of the defective pixels generated by an interpolation method or replaced with a preset specific value”);
wherein the pixel point comprises a plurality of different sub-pixel points (paragraph 125, “Each of the pixels may be divided into a red (R) subpixel, a green (G) subpixel, and a blue (B) subpixel”, paragraph 41, “The compensation data may be derived for each subpixel”).
Park et al. do not teach wherein the first captured image is acquired when the display panel is acquired when the display panel is set in a in a non-display state, and in a case that the display panel is set in the non-display state identifying the defective region of the display panel based on the first captured image comprises: extracting a sub-pixel value of each sub-pixel point in the first captured image; when a sub-pixel value of a sub-pixel point exceeds a first preset sub-pixel value interval, determining the sub-pixel point as the defective sub-pixel point; and determining all the first defective sub-pixel points, wherein all the first defective sub-pixel points form a first defective region.
Arai et al. teach wherein the first captured image is acquired when the display panel is set in a non-display state (paragraph 92, “the display panel DP is set in the black display state”), and in a case that the display panel is set in the non-display state identifying the defective region of the display panel based on the first captured image comprises: extracting the sub-pixel value of each sub-pixel point in the first captured image; when a sub-pixel value of a sub-pixel point exceeds a first preset sub-pixel value interval, determining the sub-pixel point as a first defective sub-pixel point (paragraph 93, “detects the pixel in which the luminance exceeding a threshold is measured as the bright point defect portion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park and Wang et al., so that the first captured image is acquired when the display panel is acquired when the display panel is set in a in a non-display state, and in a case that the display panel is set in the non-display state identifying the defective region of the display panel based on the first captured image comprises: extracting a sub-pixel value of each sub-pixel point in the first captured image; when a sub-pixel value of a sub-pixel point exceeds a first preset sub-pixel value interval, determining the sub-pixel point as the defective sub-pixel point; and determining all the first defective sub-pixel points, wherein all the first defective sub-pixel points form a first defective region, such as taught by Arai et al., for the purpose of identifying dead pixels.
Park and Arai et al. further teach wherein the first captured image is further acquired when the display panel is set in the display state (Park, Fig. 4, S11, data is written at 32G), and in a case that the display panel is set in the display state, identifying the defective region of the display panel based on the first captured image comprises: extracting the sub-pixel value of each sub-pixel point in the first captured image; when a sub-pixel value of a sub-pixel point exceeds a second preset sub-pixel value interval, determining the sub-pixel point as the defective sub-pixel point, wherein the second preset sub-pixel value interval is greater than the first preset sub-pixel value interval (Arai, paragraph 93, “detects the pixel in which the luminance exceeding a threshold is measured as the bright point defect portion”, notice that Aoki teaches the concept of determining an overly bright pixel, as a pixel that is brighter than an expected luminance value (0 + threshold). In the example of Arai, the expected luminance value is zero, or at the very least, very dark. Naturally, a higher expected luminance, i.e. 32G such as taught in Fig. 4 of Park would necessitate a higher defect threshold to detect a defective pixel, i.e. 32G + threshold), and determining all the first defective sub-pixel points, wherein all the first defective sub-pixel points form a first defective region and determining all the second defective sub-pixel points, wherein all the second defective sub-pixel points form a second defective region (Park, paragraph 84, “re-write compensation data for each pixel, which includes the compensation data of the defective pixels adjusted by the interpolation method”; in particular, notice wherein Fig. 4 of Park discloses calibration by capturing pixel data at different gradation levels and paragraph 92 of Arai discloses calibration by a determination of pixels in a “non-display state”, i.e., the display panel DP is set in the black display”).
Park and Arai et al. do not necessarily teach wherein the first captured image is different from the second captured image.
Takahashi et al. teach wherein the first captured image is different from the second captured image (Figs. 5 and 6, paragraphs 142-146, a plurality of images may be projected and captured so as o compensate for geometric distortion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park and Arai et al., so that the first captured image is different from the second captured image, such as taught by Takahashi, for the purpose of compensating for geometric distortion.
As per claim 13, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 1 and it is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Furthermore, Park et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing with a computer program thereon, wherein, when the computer program is executed by a processor (paragraph 174, the means for executing the computer-readable codes will be construed as the claimed processor).
As per claim 14, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 1 and it is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Furthermore, Park and Arai et al. teach a processor; and a memory, configured to store an executable instruction of the processor (paragraph 174, the means for executing the computer-readable codes will be construed as the claimed processor).
As per claim 15, Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. teach a display apparatus comprising a display panel (Fig. 20, 100) and a controller (Fig. 20, 400), the controller comprising a compensation algorithm processor (Fig. 20, 131) and a compensation parameter storage (Fig. 20, 13020210312849), the compensation parameter storage being configured to store an electrical compensation parameter and an optical compensation parameter, the compensation algorithm processor being configured to receive first image data of an image to be displayed on the display panel and call the electrical compensation parameter and the optical compensation parameter stored in the compensation parameter storage according to the first image data and perform a compensation calculation to generate compensated second image data to be displayed, wherein, the optical compensation parameter is generated based on the compensation image according to claim 1 and the image to be displayed (paragraph 79, “the compensation data applied to the pixel data may vary depending on the luminance deviation of the pixels. The imaging device 210 captures an image of the screen to which the compensation data is applied (S206). The luminance deviation compensation device analyzes the luminance characteristics of the pixels based on image data to which the compensation data is applied to detect defective pixels and then calculates compensation data”, the compensation data will be construed as the claimed electrical compensation parameter and its corresponding luminance deviation will be construed as the claimed optical compensation parameter, the addition of the compensation parameter to the original data will be construed as compensated second image data).
As per claim 17, Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. teach the display apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the display apparatus comprises: a substrate (Fig. 20, mechanical support of display 100) and a plurality of sub-pixels located in a display area (Fig. 20, pixels P located in area of display 100), wherein the sub-pixels are arranged in a plurality of rows along a first direction and in a plurality of columns along a second direction, each row of sub-pixels comprises a plurality of sub-pixels, each column of sub-pixels comprises a plurality of sub-pixels, and the first direction and the second direction intersect with each other (Fig. 20, paragraph 125, “Each of the pixels may be divided into a red (R) subpixel, a green (G) subpixel, and a blue (B) subpixel”).
As per claim 18, Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. teach the display apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the display apparatus further comprises: a plurality of gate lines (Fig. 19, 104) and a plurality of data lines (Fig. 19, 102) provided on a side of the substrate and located in the display area, wherein the plurality of gate lines extend in the first direction and the plurality of data lines extend in the second direction, sub- pixels in a same row are electrically connected with at least one of the gate lines, and sub- pixels in a same column are electrically connected with one of the data lines (Fig. 19).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0312849 to Park; in view of US 2019/0235329 to Arai et al.; in view of US 2021/0099682 to Takahashi et al.; in view of US 2020/0336684 to Wang et al..
As per claim 2, Park, Arai and Takahashi et al teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 1, wherein the pixel point comprises a plurality of different sub-pixel points (paragraph 125, “Each of the pixels may be divided into a red (R) subpixel, a green (G) subpixel, and a blue (B) subpixel”, paragraph 41, “The compensation data may be derived for each subpixel”).
Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. do not necessarily teach wherein the pixel compensation pixel value comprises a plurality of compensation sub-pixel values corresponding to sub-pixel points.
Wang et al. suggest wherein the pixel compensation pixel value comprises a plurality of compensation sub-pixel values corresponding to the sub-pixel points (paragraphs 72, 89 and 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai and Takahashi et al, so that the pixel compensation pixel value comprises a plurality of compensation sub-pixel values corresponding to sub-pixel points, such as taught by Wang et al., for the purpose of improving display quality.
Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al. teach obtaining the compensation pixel value for the defective pixel point at the preset brightness level by performing the interpolation computation on a pixel value of the normal pixel point of the second captured image comprises: performing the interpolation computation on a sub-pixel values of a normal sub-pixel point, corresponding to a defective sub-pixel point, at periphery of the defective sub-pixel points of the second captured image, to determine the compensation sub-pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point at the preset brightness level (Park, paragraph 59, “Compensation data of the contaminated pixel may be generated by an interpolation method using the compensation data of the neighboring pixels”); and
updating the pixel value of the pixel point in the defective region at the preset brightness level with the compensation pixel value to form the compensation image comprises: updating the sub-pixel value of the defective sub-pixel point at the preset brightness level with the compensation sub-pixel value, to form the compensation image (Park, paragraph 41, “The compensation data may be derived for each subpixel”; Wang, paragraphs 72, 89 and 96).
As per claim 11, Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al. teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 2, wherein the preset brightness level comprises a plurality of preset brightness level values, and the compensation sub-pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point comprise a plurality of compensation sub-pixel values corresponding to the plurality of preset brightness level values, and the method further comprises: updating the sub-pixel value of the defective sub-pixel point with the compensation sub-pixel value corresponding to the preset brightness levels, to form the compensation image (Park, Fig. 4, brightness levels corresponding to 32G and 64G and their corresponding luminance characteristics).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0312849 to Park; in view of US 2019/0235329 to Arai et al.; in view of US 2021/0099682 to Takahashi et al.; in view of US 2020/0336684 to Wang et al.; further in view of US 2004/0145708 to Tanner et al.
As per claim 3, Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al. teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 2, wherein,
performing the interpolation computation on the sub-pixel values of the normal sub- pixel point, corresponding to the defective sub-pixel point, at the periphery of the different defective sub-pixel points of the second captured image to determine the compensation sub- pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point at the preset brightness level comprises:
selecting one defective sub-pixel point in the defective region; extracting the sub-pixel values of the plurality of sub-pixel points in the second captured image (Park, Fig. 4, S14, paragraph 13, “interpolate the removed measured luminance value or compensation data of the defective pixel using data of neighboring pixels adjacent to the defective pixel”).
Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al. do not teach searching a normal sub-pixel point closest to the defective sub-pixel point from the normal region in at least four different directions, and recording the sub-pixel values of at least four normal sub-pixel points; and taking a distance between the defective sub-pixel point and the normal sub-pixel point as a weight, and performing a weighting operation on the sub-pixel values of the at least four normal sub-pixel points to obtain the compensation sub-pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point.
Tanner et al. teach searching a normal sub-pixel point closest to the defective sub-pixel point from the normal region in at least four different directions, and recording the sub-pixel values of at least four normal sub-pixel points; and taking a distance between the defective sub-pixel point and the normal sub-pixel point as a weight, and performing a weighting operation on the sub-pixel values of the at least four normal sub-pixel points to obtain the compensation sub-pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point (paragraph 6, “Bi-linear interpolation schemes use a weighted average of the four nearest pixels”, see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilinear_interpolation for a detailed explanation of a bi-linear interpolation algorithm, The Office respectfully submits that the claimed limitation seems to read on a bi-linear interpolation algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al., by searching a normal sub-pixel point closest to the defective sub-pixel point from the normal region in at least four different directions, and recording the sub-pixel values of at least four normal sub-pixel points; and taking a distance between the defective sub-pixel point and the normal sub-pixel point as a weight, and performing a weighting operation on the sub-pixel values of the at least four normal sub-pixel points to obtain the compensation sub-pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point, such as suggested by Tanner et al., for the purpose of improving display quality.
As per claim 4, Park, Arai, Takahashi, Wang and Tanner et al. teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 3, wherein taking the distance between the defective sub-pixel point and the normal sub-pixel point as the weight, and performing the weighting operation on the sub-pixel values of the at least four normal sub-pixel points to obtain the compensation sub-pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
37
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
37
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, f (x,, y) is the compensation sub-pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point, f (xi,yi), f (xi,yn), f (x, yi) and f (x,, yn) are sub-pixel values of the normal sub-pixel points, (i-1)*(j-1)/[(m-1)*(n-1)] is a weight of f(xi, yi), (i-1)*(n-1)/[(m-1)*(n-1)] is a weight of (x1, yn), (m-1)*(j-1)/[(m-1)*(n-1)] is a weight of f(xm,y1) and (m-i)*(n-j)/[(m-1)*(n-1)] is a weight of f(xm.ym), i and m represent sequence numbers of different x, and j and n represent sequence numbers of different y (Tanner, paragraph 6, “Bi-linear interpolation schemes use a weighted average of the four nearest pixels”, see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilinear_interpolation for a detailed explanation of a bi-linear interpolation algorithm, The Office respectfully submits that the claimed limitation seems to read on a bi-linear interpolation algorithm).
As per claim 5, Park, Arai, Takahashi, Wang and Tanner et al. teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 3, wherein taking the distance between the defective sub-pixel point and the normal sub-pixel point as the weight, and performing the weighting operation on the sub-pixel values of the at least four normal sub-pixel points to obtain the compensation sub-pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point comprises:
PNG
media_image3.png
42
241
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
150
571
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a weighted sum function is:
PNG
media_image5.png
95
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
one normal sub-pixel point is (a, b), another normal sub-pixel point is (g, h), and u0 and v0 are distances between the defective sub-pixel point and the normal sub-pixel point (a, b) in a first direction and a second direction, respectively, wherein the distances are normalized as u = u0 / (g-a) and v = v0 / (h-b), and a weight of the normal sub-pixel point (a, b) is w = w(u) * w(v); and A * C is a weight array of all normal sub-pixel points, B is a sub-pixel value array of all normal sub-pixel points, and f (a+ u0, b + v0) is the compensation sub-pixel value for the defective sub-pixel point (Tanner, paragraph 6, “a weighted average of the nearest sixteen pixels, often calculated using a cubic spline”, see also: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cubic_Spline_Interpolation for a detailed explanation of a cubic-spline interpolation algorithm. The Office respectfully submits that the claimed limitation seems to read on a cubic spline interpolation algorithm, or an obvious variation thereof, which utilizes weights proportional to the distance between an interpolated pixel and its neighboring 16 interpolating pixels. In other words, the proposed claimed method achieves the same predictable result as a cubic spline interpolation method).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0312849 to Park; in view of US 2019/0235329 to Arai et al.; in view of US 2021/0099682 to Takahashi et al.; in view of US 2020/0336684 to Wang et al.; in view of US 2016/0147492 to Fugate et al.
As per claim 8, Park, Arai and Wang et al. teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 2.
Park, Arai, Takahashi, and Wang et al. do not teach wherein before performing the interpolation computation on the sub-pixel values of the normal sub-pixel point, corresponding to the defective sub-pixel point, at the periphery of the defective sub-pixel points of the second captured image, the method further comprises: determining a deflection angle of the second captured image; and performing a coordinate axis conversion on the second captured image and performing a coordinate value conversion on sub-pixel points in the second captured image based on the deflection angle, to eliminate the deflection angle of the second captured image.
Fugate et al. teach wherein before performing the interpolation (Fig. 4, 40, is analogous to the interpolation step of Park and Wang given that it is also used to improve display image characteristics) computation on the sub-pixel values of the normal sub-pixel point, corresponding to the defective sub-pixel point, at the periphery of the defective sub-pixel points of the second captured image, the method further comprises: determining a deflection angle of the second captured image; and performing a coordinate axis conversion on the second captured image and performing a coordinate value conversion on sub-pixel points in the second captured image based on the deflection angle, to eliminate the deflection angle of the second captured image (Fig. 4, 38, paragraph 26, “applying a perspective transform to each identified display to compensate for the variety of angles at which the first display 14 may be positioned with respect to the image capture device 16”, in other words, a normalization step is applied to account for image capture angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai, Takahashi, and Wang et al., so that before performing the interpolation computation on the sub-pixel values of the normal sub-pixel point, corresponding to the defective sub-pixel point, at the periphery of the defective sub-pixel points of the second captured image, the method further comprises: determining a deflection angle of the second captured image; and performing a coordinate axis conversion on the second captured image and performing a coordinate value conversion on sub-pixel points in the second captured image based on the deflection angle, to eliminate the deflection angle of the second captured image, such as taught by Fugate et al., for the purpose of improving image quality.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0312849 to Park; in view of US 2019/0235329 to Arai et al.; in view of US 2021/0099682 to Takahashi et al.; in view of US 2020/0336684 to Wang et al.; in view of US 2006/0152605 to Okazaki; in view of US 2007/0122061 to Sakuta et al.
As per claim 9, Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al. teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 2.
Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al. do no teach wherein before performing the interpolation computation on the sub-pixel values of the normal sub-pixel point, corresponding to the defective sub-pixel point, at the periphery of the different-defective sub-pixel points of the second captured image, the method further comprises: determining whether an area of the defective region is less than a preset value; and when the area of the defective region is less than the preset value, reducing the correction difficulty.
Okazaki teaches wherein before performing the interpolation computation on the sub-pixel values of the normal sub-pixel point, corresponding to the defective sub-pixel point, at the periphery of the different-defective sub-pixel points of the second captured image, the method further comprises: determining whether an area of the defective region is less than a preset value; and when the area of the defective region is less than the preset value, reducing the correction difficulty (paragraph 106, “The interpolation priority determiner 18 uses the size of a defective area as a factor to determine the level of correction difficulty”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al., so that before performing the interpolation computation on the sub-pixel values of the normal sub-pixel point, corresponding to the defective sub-pixel point, at the periphery of the different-defective sub-pixel points of the second captured image, the method further comprises: determining whether an area of the defective region is less than a preset value; and when the area of the defective region is less than the preset value, reducing the correction difficulty, such as taught by Okazaki, for the purpose of improving image quality.
Park, Arai, Takahashi, Wang and Okazaki do not teach updating the sub-pixel value of the defective sub-pixel point with a sub-pixel value of a normal sub-pixel point closest to the defective region.
Sakuta et al. suggest updating the sub-pixel value of the defective sub-pixel point with a sub-pixel value of a normal sub-pixel point closest to the defective region (paragraph 56, “By approximation with a simple interpolation expression such as an average luminance value of at least two adjacent pixels or a luminance value of one pixel, the load on the control section (CPU) can be reduced”; paragraph 149, “the interpolation expression having the interpolation expression number of 0 represents processing of simply substituting a value (using the luminance of one pixel included in the original image as it is)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai, Takahashi, Wang and Okazaki, by updating the sub-pixel value of the defective sub-pixel point with a sub-pixel value of a normal sub-pixel point closest to the defective region, such as taught by Sakuta et al., for the purpose of reducing a processing load.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0312849 to Park; in view of US 2019/0235329 to Arai et al.; in view of US 2021/0099682 to Takahashi et al.; in view of US 2020/0336684 to Wang et al.; in view of US 2019/0279545 to Shinobu et al.
As per claim 10, Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al. teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 1.
Park, Arai and Wang et al. do not teach wherein before acquiring the first captured image of the display panel, the method further comprises: acquiring a third captured image when the display panel is in a non-display state; determining whether a foreign matter presents on the display panel based on the third captured image; and cleaning the display panel in case that the foreign matter presents on the display panel.
Shinobu et al. teach wherein before acquiring the first captured image of the display panel, the method further comprises: acquiring a third captured image when the display panel is in a non-display state; determining whether a foreign matter presents on the display panel based on the third captured image (Fig. 4, S5, a lighting defect is assumed to correspond to foreign matter present on the display panel); and cleaning the display panel in case that the foreign matter presents on the display panel (paragraph 37, “causes the cleaner shifter 22 to shift the cleaner 20 to a spot where the lighting defect is detected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai, Takahashi and Wang et al., so that before acquiring the first captured image of the display panel, the method further comprises: acquiring a third captured image when the display panel is in a non-display state; determining whether a foreign matter presents on the display panel based on the third captured image; and cleaning the display panel in case that the foreign matter presents on the display panel, such as taught by Shinobu et al., for the purpose of improving image quality.
Claims 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0312849 to Park; in view of US 2019/0235329 to Arai et al.; in view of US 2021/0099682 to Takahashi et al.; in view of US 11,756,489 to Pyun et al.
As per claim 16, Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. teach the display apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the controller further comprises an image processor (Figs. 19 and 20, 110/131/132), a driving controller (Figs. 19 and 20, 131/132); the image processor is configured to receive the second image data, and convert the second image data into digital quantity information required to light a corresponding sub-pixel (paragraph 142, “The compensation unit 131 adds the compensation data input from the second memory 133 to the pixel data of the input image and transmits the pixel data to the data driving unit”); and the driving controller is configured to output a driving schedule required based on the digital quantity information, and display the image to be displayed (paragraph 136, “generate timing control signals synchronized with the pixel data transmitted to the data driving unit 110 and control operation timing of the pixel driving devices 110, 112, and 120”).
Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. do not explicitly teach a sensing data converter; wherein the sensing data converter is configured to convert a sensing signal sensed by the display panel into a digital signal and generate the electrical compensation parameter based on the digital signal.
Pyun et al. teach a sensing data converter (Fig. 2, ADC); wherein the sensing data converter is configured to convert a sensing signal sensed by the display panel into a digital signal and generate the electrical compensation parameter based on the digital signal (column 9, lines 17-21, “The analog-to-digital converter ADC may sense the voltage Vsense that is a voltage across the capacitor Crvl through the initialization voltage line IVL, and transmit sensing data obtained by converting the sensed voltage into a digital value to the timing controller 140”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai and Takahashi et al., by including a sensing data converter; wherein the sensing data converter is configured to convert a sensing signal sensed by the display panel into a digital signal and generate the electrical compensation parameter based on the digital signal, such as taught by Pyun et al., for the purpose of compensating for threshold voltage variations.
As per claim 19, Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. teach the display apparatus according to claim 18.
Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. do not explicitly teach wherein each of the sub- pixels comprises a pixel driving circuit and a light emitting device electrically connected with the pixel driving circuit, one of the gate lines is electrically connected with a plurality of the pixel driving circuits of the sub-pixels in the same row, and one of the data lines is electrically connected with a plurality of the pixel driving circuits of the sub-pixels in the same column.
Pyun et al. teach wherein each of the sub- pixels comprises a pixel driving (Fig. 2) circuit and a light emitting device (Fig. 2, LD) electrically connected with the pixel driving circuit, one of the gate lines (Fig. 2, GL) is electrically connected with a plurality of the pixel driving circuits of the sub-pixels in the same row, and one of the data lines (Fig. 2, DL) is electrically connected with a plurality of the pixel driving circuits of the sub-pixels in the same column (Fig. 1, column 5, lines 25-30, “a plurality of pixels PX may be disposed at points where the plurality of data lines DL1 to DLm, the plurality of sensing lines I1 to Ip, and the plurality of gate lines GL1 to GLn are intersected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai and Takahashi et al., so that each of the sub- pixels comprises a pixel driving circuit and a light emitting device electrically connected with the pixel driving circuit, one of the gate lines is electrically connected with a plurality of the pixel driving circuits of the sub-pixels in the same row, and one of the data lines is electrically connected with a plurality of the pixel driving circuits of the sub-pixels in the same column, such as taught by Pyun et al., for the purpose of compensating for threshold voltage variations.
As per claim 20, Park, Arai, Takahashi and Pyun et al. teach the display apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the pixel driving circuit comprises: a switching transistor (Pyun, Fig. 2, T2), a driving transistor (Pyun, Fig. 2, DRT), a sensing transistor (Pyun, Fig. 2, T1) and a storage capacitor (Pyun, Fig. 2, Cstg), wherein, a control electrode of the switching transistor is electrically connected with a first gate signal terminal, a first electrode of the switching transistor is electrically connected with a data signal terminal, a second electrode of the switching transistor is electrically connected with a first node (Pyun, Fig. 2, N2), the first gate signal terminal is electrically connected with one of the gate lines, and the data signal terminal is electrically connected with one of the data lines; the switching transistor is configured to transmit a data signal received at the data signal terminal to the first node in response to a first scan signal received at the first gate signal terminal; a control electrode of the driving transistor is electrically connected with the first node, a first electrode of the driving transistor is electrically connected with a sixth voltage signal terminal (Pyun, Fig. 2, ELVDD), and a second electrode of the driving transistor is electrically connected with a second node (Pyun, Fig. 2, N1); the driving transistor is configured to be turned on under a control of a voltage of the first node, generate a driving signal according to the voltage of the first node and a sixth voltage signal received at the sixth voltage signal terminal, and transmit the driving signal to the second node; a first terminal of the storage capacitor is electrically connected with the first node, and a second terminal of the storage capacitor is electrically connected with the second node; the switching transistor charges the storage capacitor while charging the first node; an anode of the light emitting device is electrically connected with the second node, and a cathode of the light emitting device is electrically connected with a seventh voltage signal terminal; the light emitting device is configured to emit light under a driving of the driving signal; a control electrode of the sensing transistor is electrically connected with a second gate signal terminal, a first electrode of the sensing transistor is electrically connected with the second node, a second electrode of the sensing transistor is electrically connected with a sensing signal terminal (Pyun, Fig. 2, terminal connected to IVL), the second gate signal terminal is electrically connected with another one of the gate lines (Pyun, Fig. 2, GL’), and the sensing signal terminal is electrically connected with another one of the data lines (Pyun, Fig. 2, IVL); and the sensing transistor is configured to detect a threshold voltage and/or carrier mobility of the driving transistor in response to a second scan signal received at the second gate signal terminal (Pyun, Fig. 2, column 8, lines 15-20, “sensing deviation (threshold voltage, and mobility) information of the driving transistor DRT by the sensing unit 160”).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0312849 to Park; in view of US 2019/0235329 to Arai et al.; in view of US 2021/0099682 to Takahashi et al.; further in view of US 2019/0325821 to Pyo et al.
As per claim 21, Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 1, with first and second preset sub-pixel value intervals (Arai, paragraph 93, “detects the pixel in which the luminance exceeding a threshold is measured as the bright point defect portion”, notice that Arai teaches the concept of determining an overly bright pixel, as a pixel that is brighter than an expected luminance value (0 + threshold). In the example of Arai, the expected luminance value is zero, or at the very least, very dark. Naturally, a higher expected luminance, i.e. 32G such as taught in Fig. 4 of Park would necessitate a higher defect threshold to detect a defective pixel, i.e. 32G + threshold).
Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first preset sub-pixel value interval is 30-70 nits; and the second preset sub-pixel value interval is 50-100 nits.
Pyo et al. teach wherein the first preset sub-pixel value interval is 30-70 nits; and the second preset sub-pixel value interval is 50-100 nits (Fig. 3, paragraph 61, notice that a plurality of different luminance are suggested so as to properly calibrate a gamma curve, the particular grayscale selected (and corresponding luminance) is a matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai and Takahashi et al., so that the first preset sub-pixel value interval is 30-70 nits; and the second preset sub-pixel value interval is 50-100 nits, for the purpose of accounting for non-linearities at different brightness levels.
As per claim 22, Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. teach the method for compensating the display defect according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the display panel is set in the non-display state (Arai, paragraph 92, “the display panel DP is set in the black display state”) identifying the defective region of the display panel based on the first captured image comprises: extracting the sub-pixel value of each sub-pixel point in the first captured image; when a sub-pixel value of a sub-pixel point exceeds a first preset sub-pixel value interval, determining the sub-pixel point as a first defective sub-pixel point (Arai, paragraph 93, “detects the pixel in which the luminance exceeding a threshold is measured as the bright point defect portion”) and determining all the first defective sub-pixel points wherein all the first defective subpixel points form a first defective region (the region comprising detected bright pixels is being construed as the claimed first defective region).
Park, Arai and Takahashi et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first preset sub-pixel value interval is 30-70 nits; and the second preset sub-pixel value interval is 50-100 nits.
Pyo et al. teach wherein the first preset sub-pixel value interval is 30-70 nits; and the second preset sub-pixel value interval is 50-100 nits (Fig. 3, paragraph 61, notice that a plurality of different luminance are suggested so as to properly calibrate a gamma curve, the particular grayscale selected (and corresponding luminance) is a matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Park, Arai and Takahashi et al., so that the first preset sub-pixel value interval is 30-70 nits; and the second preset sub-pixel value interval is 50-100 nits, for the purpose of accounting for non-linearities at different brightness levels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, from 8 am - 5 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571) 272-7603. 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.
/JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights