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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III [figure 10, corresponding to claims 1-14] in the reply filed on 2/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/3/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, the claim recites “store reference a mura compensation value”, which appears to be a typographical error. Examiner suggests changing “store reference a mura compensation value” to “store a reference mura compensation value” to maintain antecedent basis with “the reference mura compensation value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “DBV setting unit” in claims 1 & 11; “mura compensation value determination unit” in claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, & 13; “reference gray scale value determination unit” in claims 2 & 3; “reference mura compensation value determination unit” in claim 2; “input mura compensation value determination unit” in claims 5, 6, 7, 9; “image data conversion unit” in claim 10; “image data output unit” in claim 10; .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, 5, 10-11, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Min (US 20230186816).
As to claim 1, Min discloses a mura compensation module [abstract & para. 68-73] comprising:
a DBV setting unit (luminance adjuster 400) [figs. 6-12 & para. 68 & 65-66] configured to set one of a plurality of luminance bands (optical band comprising first to seventh DBV bands Band1 to Band 7) [figs. 9-10 & para. 65-68] to a set luminance band (select a target optical band corresponding to dbv) [figs. 6-12 & para. 65-68];
a memory (second memory 302) [fig. 6 & para. 65, 54, 69, & 73-75] configured to store reference a mura compensation value for each gray scale in a reference luminance band (black gray-scale adjustment value suitable for target optical band) [para. 69]; and
a mura compensation value determination unit (luminance adjuster 400) [figs. 6-12 & para. 68 & 65-66] configured to determine an input mura compensation value of a first input gray scale value (black gray-scale adjustment value suitable for target optical band for black gray-scale data voltage vdata black) [para. 69] in the set luminance band on the basis of the reference mura compensation value for each gray scale in the reference luminance band (high grayscale data voltage vdata_gray) [figs. 6-12 & para. 67-70 & 73-75].
As to claim 2, Min discloses the mura compensation module of claim 1, wherein the mura compensation value determination unit includes:
a reference gray scale value determination unit (black gray-scale data voltage vdata black) [para. 69] configured to determine a first reference gray scale value in the reference luminance band corresponding to the first input gray scale value in the set luminance band; and
a reference mura compensation value determination unit (black gray-scale adjustment value suitable for target optical band for black gray-scale data voltage vdata black read by luminance adjust 400) [para. 69] configured to obtain a reference mura compensation value for the first reference gray scale value from the memory.
As to claim 3, Min discloses the mura compensation module of claim 2, wherein the memory further stores a first gain value (black gray-scale adjustment value suitable for target optical band for black gray-scale data voltage vdata black & adjustment & adjustment for high grayscale data voltage vdata_gray) [para. 69-71] for each of the plurality of luminance bands, and
wherein the reference gray scale value determination unit obtains the first gain value for the set luminance band from the memory and determines the first reference gray scale value in the reference luminance band that corresponds to the first input gray scale value in the set luminance band on the basis of the obtained first gain value [para. 69-71].
As to claim 5, Min discloses the mura compensation module of claim 1, wherein the mura compensation value determination unit includes an input mura compensation value determination unit configured to determine the input mura compensation value for the first input gray scale value in the set luminance band on the basis of a reference mura compensation value for a first reference gray scale value in the reference luminance band (black grayscale adjustment value for black grayscale data voltage vdata black, compensation for black margin between different bands) [figs. 6-12 & para. 67-71 & 73-75]; and
wherein the first reference gray scale value in the reference luminance band has a luminance the same as that of the first input gray scale value in the set luminance band [figs. 6-12 & para. 67-71 & 73-75].
As to claim 10, Min discloses a display control apparatus [abstract & fig. 1] comprising:
a pre-processor (host system 200) [figs. 1, 4, & 6 & para. 47, 43-44, 54-57, 64, & 66-68] configured to generate gray scale data including a first input gray scale value (image data data) [figs. 1, 4, 6 & para. 47] for each of a plurality of pixels on the basis of image data;
a mura compensation module (data calculator 308 with luminance adjuster 400) [figs. 6-12 & para. 67-70 & 73-75] configured to determine an input mura compensation value of each of the plurality of pixels using a reference mura compensation value in a reference luminance band (black gray-scale adjustment value suitable for target optical band) [para. 69] and the first input gray scale values of the plurality of pixels included in the gray scale data [figs. 6-12 & para. 67-70 & 73-75];
an image data conversion unit (gamma compensation voltage generator 305) [figs. 4 & 6 & para. 49, 51, & 71] configured to convert the image data into image data in which the input mura compensation value is reflected with respect to each of the plurality of pixels; and
an image data output unit (data driver 306) [figs. 4 & 6 & para. 29, 48-49, & 71] configured to output the converted image data.
As to claim 11, Min discloses the display control apparatus of claim 10, wherein the mura compensation module includes:
a DBV setting unit (luminance adjuster 400) [figs. 6-12 & para. 68 & 65-66] configured to set one of a plurality of luminance bands (optical band comprising first to seventh DBV bands Band1 to Band 7) [figs. 9-10 & para. 65-68] to a set luminance band and outputs a display brightness value corresponding to the set luminance band (select a target optical band corresponding to dbv) [figs. 6-12 & para. 65-68], and
a mura compensation value determination unit (luminance adjuster 400) [figs. 6-12 & para. 68 & 65-66] configured to determine an input mura compensation value of each of the plurality of pixels in the set luminance band using the display brightness value (high grayscale data voltage vdata_gray) [figs. 6-12 & para. 67-70 & 73-75], the reference mura compensation value in the reference luminance band (black gray-scale adjustment value suitable for target optical band) [para. 69], and the first input gray scale values of the plurality of pixels included in the gray scale data (black gray-scale adjustment value suitable for target optical band for black gray-scale data voltage vdata black) [para. 69].
As to claim 14, Min discloses the display control apparatus of claim 10, wherein the mura compensation module includes a memory (second memory 302) [fig. 6 & para. 65, 54, 69, & 73-75] configured to store reference mura compensation value for each gray scale in the reference luminance band with respect to each of a plurality of blocks (each pixel being a block) [figs. 1 & 6-12 & para. 67-70, 54, & 73-75], and
wherein the plurality of pixels are divided into the plurality of blocks, and each of the plurality of blocks corresponds to at least one pixel (each pixel being a block) [figs. 1 & 6-12 & para. 67-70, 54, & 73-75].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-9, & 12-13 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.
Lee et al. (US 20160189635).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID TUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 10:00AM - 6:00PM.
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.
/DAVID TUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights