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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on 21 March 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0039165 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “arbitrary” in claims 13, 15 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arbitrary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “arbitrary” is purely subjective.
Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 of this title, 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 1-8, 13-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyo (US 2019/0340981 A1) in view of Pyo et al (US 2019/0304372 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pyo (‘981) discloses a voltage-setting method for a display device for displaying an image [e.g., Paragraph 156: display an image by changing a black gray scale voltage VREG depending on a display luminance DL] based on a selected maximum luminance among maximum luminances [e.g., Fig. 14: display luminances = 2 - 750 nit], the voltage-setting method comprising:
setting emission duty ratios [e.g., Fig. 4: illustrated EM duty ratio; Fig. 14: emission off duty % = 2.9 - 98.1%] with respect to the maximum luminances [e.g., Paragraph 96: the off-duty ratio AOR of the k-th emission control signal EMk may be changed depending on the display luminance];
setting first power voltages [e.g., Fig. 3: ELVSS] with respect to the maximum luminances based on a first maximum luminance [e.g., Fig. 14: 100 nit; Paragraph 96: the low-power voltage ELVSS may be changed depending on the display luminance];
setting black data voltages [e.g., Fig. 4: Data; Fig. 14: VREG = 5.2 - 6.1 V] with respect to the maximum luminances based on a second maximum luminance [e.g., Fig. 14: 750 nit; Paragraph 97: gray scale voltages (or data voltages) respectively corresponding to gray scales may be changed by a change in black gray scale voltage VREG depending on the display luminance; Paragraph 100: The first black gray scale voltage VREG1 is the maximum black gray scale voltage applied to the display device DD, and may be a black gray scale voltage corresponding to the maximum luminance with which the display device DD emits light]; and
setting values of anode initialization voltages [e.g., Fig. 3: Vint] and the first power voltages [e.g., Paragraph 96: the low-power voltage ELVSS and the initialization voltage VINT may be changed depending on the display luminance] with respect to ones of the maximum luminances [e.g., Fig. 14: 2 nit, 15 nit] other than the second maximum luminance based on a third maximum luminance [e.g., Fig. 14: 15 nit] and a fourth maximum luminance [e.g., Fig. 14: 2 nit] (e.g., see Paragraphs 39-174).
Pyo (‘981) doesn’t appear to expressly disclose setting difference values of the anode initialization voltages and the first power voltages.
However, Pyo (‘372) discloses setting difference values [e.g., Figs. 3, 4: V_D = 0.8 - 1.5 V] of anode initialization voltages [e.g., Figs. 2-4: Vint1] and the first power voltages [e.g., Figs. 2-4: ELVSS] with respect to ones of the maximum luminances [e.g., Fig. 4: DBV = 2 - 750 nit] other than the second maximum luminance [e.g., Fig. 4: DBV = 750 nit] based on a third maximum luminance [e.g., Fig. 4: DBV = 15 nit] and a fourth maximum luminance [e.g., Fig. 4: DBV = 2 nit] (e.g., see Paragraphs 64, 67, 80, 92, 102, 110, 116, 120, 121).
Pyo (‘981) and Pyo (‘372) are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of voltage setting methods for display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Pyo (‘372)’s difference values with Pyo (‘981)’s display device and/or method, so as to improve image luminance and/or response speed.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Pyo (‘372)’s difference values with Pyo (‘981)’s display device and/or method as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 2, Pyo (‘981) discloses the second maximum luminance, the third maximum luminance, and the fourth maximum luminance are different (e.g., see Fig. 14; Paragraphs 158-162).
Regarding claim 3, Pyo (‘981) discloses the second maximum luminance is greater than each of the third maximum luminance and the fourth maximum luminance (e.g., see Fig. 14; Paragraphs 158-162).
Regarding claim 4, Pyo (‘981) discloses the second maximum luminance is a maximum value [e.g., Fig. 14: 750 nit] among the maximum luminances (e.g., see Fig. 14; Paragraphs 158-162).
Regarding claim 5, Pyo (‘981) discloses setting a same first power voltage with respect to ones of the maximum luminances [e.g., Fig. 14: 15 nit, 10 nit, 7 nit] that are less than or equal to the third maximum luminance [e.g., Paragraph 96: the low-power voltage ELVSS may be changed depending on the display luminance; as such, the reference implicitly discloses the power voltage may stay the same even as the display luminance changes].
Moreover, the first power voltage can only either change or stay the same as the luminance changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (i.e., setting a same power voltage or setting different power voltages). If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 6, Pyo (‘981) discloses setting a same emission duty ratio with respect to ones of the maximum luminances [e.g., Fig. 14: 15 nit, 30 nit, 60 nit] that are greater than or equal to the third maximum luminance [e.g., Paragraph 96: the off-duty ratio AOR of the k-th emission control signal EMk may be changed depending on the display luminance; as such, the reference implicitly discloses the duty ratio may stay the same even as the display luminance changes].
Moreover, the duty ratio can only either change or stay the same as the luminance changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (i.e., setting a same duty ratio or setting different duty ratios). If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 7, Pyo (‘981) discloses setting at least one maximum luminance [e.g., Fig. 14: 2 nit], for which a smallest one [e.g., Fig. 14: 2 nit] of the emission duty ratios is set, as the fourth maximum luminance (e.g., see Fig. 14; Paragraphs 158-162).
Regarding claim 8, Pyo (‘981) discloses setting a largest one [e.g., Fig. 14: 750 nit] of the at least one maximum luminance as the fourth maximum luminance (e.g., see Fig. 14; Paragraphs 158-162).
Regarding claim 13, Pyo (‘372) discloses selecting a difference value [e.g., Fig. 4: V_D = 0.5 V] of an anode initialization voltage [e.g., Fig. 4: Vint1 = -3.7 V] and a first power voltage [e.g., Fig. 4: ELVSS = -4.2 V] with respect to the second maximum luminance (e.g., see Paragraphs 64-121).
Pyo (‘981) discloses repeatedly testing arbitrary black data voltages [e.g., Fig. 8: P_VREG = 5.9 – 6.7 V] based on the difference value [e.g., Paragraph 119: a preliminary black gray scale voltage P_VREG] with respect to the second maximum luminance;
setting a black data voltage [e.g., Fig. 8: P_VREG = 6.1 V] with respect to the second maximum luminance; and
displaying a black image (e.g., see Paragraphs 65, 117-130).
Regarding claim 14, Pyo (‘981) discloses applying offsets [e.g., Fig. 7: DV1, MV1] based on the black data voltage with respect to the second maximum luminance; and setting black data voltages [e.g., VREG = 5.2 - 6.1 V] with respect to other ones [e.g., Fig. 14: display luminances = 2 - 650 nit] of the maximum luminances (e.g., see Paragraphs 118-174).
Regarding claim 15, Pyo (‘372) discloses repeatedly testing arbitrary difference values [e.g., Fig. 4: V_D = 0.8 – 1.1 V] based on a black data voltage set [e.g., Fig. 4: EL_bias = 0.8 – 1.1 V] with respect to the third maximum luminance;
setting a difference value [e.g., Fig. 4: V_D = 0.8 V] with respect to the third maximum luminance; and
displaying a black image (e.g., see Paragraphs 63, 64, 66, 84-99, 122).
Regarding claim 16, Pyo (‘372) discloses repeatedly testing arbitrary difference values [e.g., Fig. 4: V_D = 1.2 – 1.5 V] based on a black data voltage set [e.g., Fig. 4: EL_bias = 1.2 – 1.5 V] with respect to the fourth maximum luminance;
setting a difference value [e.g., Fig. 4: V_D = 1.2 V] with respect to the fourth maximum luminance; and
displaying a black image (e.g., see Paragraphs 63, 64, 66, 84-99, 122).
Regarding claim 19, Pyo (‘981) discloses the first maximum luminance, the second maximum luminance, the third maximum luminance, and the fourth maximum luminance are different (e.g., see Fig. 14; Paragraphs 158-162).
Regarding claim 20, Pyo (‘981) discloses the second maximum luminance is greater than each of the first maximum luminance, the third maximum luminance, and the fourth maximum luminance (e.g., see Fig. 14; Paragraphs 158-162).
Claim Objections
Claims 9-12, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached 'Notice of References Cited' are cited to further evidence the state of the art pertaining to voltage-setting methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
23 January 2026