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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/26 has been entered.
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 (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 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 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (WO 2021/152814, published 8/5/21, cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 5/16/25; *Note: Examiner will rely upon US 2023/0351960 as an English translation for WO 2021/152814) in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0075226; hereinafter referred to as Lee ‘226).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a display device, comprising: a display panel including a pixel and an emission line connected to the pixel (abstract, figs. 1-2, Ei, ¶ 46-51);
an emission driver which provides an emission signal to the emission line, wherein the emission signal defines discontinuous emission periods and non-emission periods during a frame period among a plurality of frame periods (figs. 1-2, ¶ 46-51, emission driver 15; see also figs. 7, 10);
and a controller which determines an emission cycle corresponding to a number of the discontinuous emission periods during the frame period and an emission-off ratio which is a ratio of a sum of the non-emission periods to the frame period (figs. 1-2, ¶ 46-51, control circuit 12; see also fig. 10 and ¶ 75-89),
wherein the plurality of frame periods includes an n−1th frame period, an n+1th frame period, and an nth frame period between the n−1th frame period and the n+1th frame period, wherein the emission cycle of the n−1th frame period is different from the emission cycle of the n+1th frame period, the emission-off ratio of the n−1th frame period is equal to the emission-off ratio of the n+1th frame period, wherein n is a positive integer greater than 1 (fig. 10, ¶ 75-89, frame periods F21, F22, and F23; see also fig. 7).
Nakamura fails to explicitly disclose the nth frame period includes first to mth sub-frame periods having different emission-off ratios and each of the first to mth sub-frame periods includes at least two pulses of the emission signal, wherein m is a positive integer greater than 1, wherein an emission-off ratio of the first sub-frame period is set to be greater than or less than an emission-off ratio of the n-1th frame period based on whether emission-off ratios of the first to mth sub-frame periods are decreasing or increasing.
Lee ‘226 teaches the nth frame period includes first to mth sub-frame periods having different emission-off ratios and each of the first to mth sub-frame periods includes at least two pulses of the emission signal, wherein m is a positive integer greater than 1 (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed),
wherein an emission-off ratio of the first sub-frame period is set to be greater than or less than an emission-off ratio of the n-1th frame period based on whether emission-off ratios of the first to mth sub-frame periods are decreasing or increasing (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Nakamura and Lee ‘226 are both directed to EL display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Nakamura with the device of Lee ‘226 since such a modification reduces or prevents flicker (Lee, ¶ 71).
Regarding claim 2, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission-off ratios of the first to mth sub-frame periods decrease from the first sub-frame period to the mth sub-frame period when the emission cycle of the n+1th frame period is greater than the emission cycle of the n−1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 3, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission-off ratio of the first sub-frame period is greater than the emission-off ratio of the n−1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 4, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission-off ratios of the first to mth sub-frame periods increase from the first sub-frame period to the mth sub-frame period when the emission cycle of the n+1th frame period is less than the emission cycle of the n−1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 5, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission-off ratio of the mth sub-frame period is greater than the emission-off ratio of the n+1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 6, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission cycle of the nth frame period is equal to the emission cycle of a frame period with the greater emission cycle among the n−1th frame period and the n+1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 7, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein emission cycles of the first to mth sub-frame periods are different (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 8, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission cycles of the first to mth sub-frame periods increase from the first sub-frame period to the mth sub-frame period when the emission cycle of the n+1th frame period is greater than the emission cycle of the n−1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 9, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission-off ratio of the first sub-frame period is greater than the emission-off ratio of the n−1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 10, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission cycle of the first sub-frame period is greater than the emission cycle of the n−1th frame period, and the emission cycle of the mth sub-frame period is less than the emission cycle of the n+1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 11, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission cycles of the first to mth sub-frame periods decrease from the first sub-frame period to the mth sub-frame period when the emission cycle of the n+1th frame period is less than the emission cycle of the n−1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission cycle of the first sub-frame period is less than the emission cycle of the n−1th frame period, and the emission cycle of the mth sub-frame period is greater than the emission cycle of the n+1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed; designation of subframes not restricted).
Regarding claim 14, Lee ‘226 further teaches wherein the emission cycle of the nth frame period is between the emission cycle of the n−1th frame period and the emission cycle of the n+1th frame period (figs. 4-6, ¶ 62-71, b1-b8 may be variously set, e.g., b1-b8 are sequentially increased or decreased; see also ¶ 76-80, bridge frame disclosed).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura discloses wherein luminances of the n−1th frame period and the n+1th frame period are equal (fig. 10, ¶ 7, ¶ 75-89, leading and trailing frame periods have the same proportion of emission periods; see also fig. 7).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Lee ‘226 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0151132; hereinafter referred to as Lee ‘132).
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura discloses wherein the emission cycle of one of the n−1th frame period and the n+1th frame period is 1 (fig. 10, ¶ 75-89; see also fig. 7).
Nakamura in view of Lee ‘226 fails to explicitly disclose the emission cycle of another of the n−1th frame period and the n+1th frame period is 12, 16, 24, or 32.
Lee ‘132 teaches the emission cycle of another of the n−1th frame period and the n+1th frame period is 12, 16, 24, or 32 (fig. 3, figs. 6-7, ¶ 179-184, see also ¶ 220-240, duty ratio pattern coded on a frame-by-frame basis, “r” EM pulses greater than or equal to 2; see also ¶ 244-246; see also ¶ 136-140).
Nakamura in view of Lee ‘226 and Lee ‘132 are both directed to electroluminescent displays with variable emission pulses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Nakamura in view of Lee ‘226 with the duty ratio coding of Lee ‘132 since such a modification provides the EM signal can be easily controlled for each frame period (Lee ‘132, ¶ 240) and flicker can be reduced (Lee ‘132, ¶ 240).
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Lee ‘132.
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura discloses an electronic apparatus, comprising: a display panel including a pixel and an emission line connected to the pixel (abstract, figs. 1-2, Ei, ¶ 46-51);
an emission driver which provides an emission signal to the emission line, wherein the emission signal defines discontinuous emission periods and non-emission periods during a frame period among a plurality of frame periods (figs. 1-2, ¶ 46-51, emission driver 15; see also figs. 7, 10);
a controller which determines an emission cycle corresponding to a number of the discontinuous emission periods during the frame period and an emission-off ratio which is a ratio of a sum of the non-emission periods to the frame period (figs. 1-2, ¶ 46-51, control circuit 12; see also fig. 10 and ¶ 75-89),
wherein a first frame period has a first emission cycle (fig. 10, ¶ 75-89, e.g., frame F21; see also fig. 7),
a second frame period adjacent to the first frame period has a second emission cycle greater than the first emission cycle (fig. 10, ¶ 75-89, e.g., frame F22; see also fig. 7).
Nakamura fails to explicitly disclose wherein, when a second frame period adjacent to the first frame period has a second emission cycle greater than the first emission cycle, the controller sets a length of a non-emission period of the first frame period equal to a length of a non-emission period of the second frame period, and a magnitude of a data voltage of the first frame period to be less than a magnitude of a data voltage of the second frame period.
Lee ‘132 teaches wherein, when a second frame period adjacent to the first frame period has a second emission cycle greater than the first emission cycle, the controller sets a length of a non-emission period of the first frame period equal to a length of a non-emission period of the second frame period, and a magnitude of a data voltage of the first frame period to be less than a magnitude of a data voltage of the second frame period (figs. 2-3, ¶ 11, ¶ 127, ¶ 140-156, e.g., see ¶ 151, brightness of image with 100 intensity for 100% turn-on duty ratio may be perceived as substantially the same as image with 200 intensity with 50% turn-on duty ratio; see also figs. 6-7, ¶ 179-184, turn-on duty ratio can be set to 0% such that the actual number of EM turn-on pulses in each frame period may be different, see also ¶ 220-240, duty ratio pattern coded on a frame-by-frame basis, some non-emission periods across frames are equal; see also ¶ 244-246).
Nakamura and Lee ‘132 are both directed to electroluminescent displays with variable emission pulses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Nakamura with the duty ratio coding of Lee ‘132 since such a modification provides the EM signal can be easily controlled for each frame period (Lee ‘132, ¶ 240) and flicker can be reduced (Lee ‘132, ¶ 240).
Regarding claim 18, Lee ‘132 further teaches wherein the first frame period has a first emission-off ratio which is a minimum emission-off ratio, and the second frame period has a second emission-off ratio greater than the first emission-off ratio (figs. 2-3, ¶ 11, ¶ 127, ¶ 140-156, e.g., see ¶ 151, brightness of image with 100 intensity for 100% turn-on duty ratio may be perceived as substantially the same as image with 200 intensity with 50% turn-on duty ratio; see also figs. 6-7, ¶ 179-184, turn-on duty ratio can be set to 0% such that the actual number of EM turn-on pulses in each frame period may be different, see also ¶ 220-240, duty ratio pattern coded on a frame-by-frame basis, some non-emission periods across frames are equal; see also ¶ 244-246).
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that Lee ‘132 “does not disclose setting non-emission period length and data voltage magnitude in response to an emission-cycle relationship between adjacent frame periods” (Remarks, pp. 11-12).
Examiner disagrees. As cited above, ¶ 151 of Lee ‘132 discloses that perceived brightness varies depending on both the intensity of the light (i.e., data voltage, see ¶ 11, ¶ 127) and the light emission time (i.e., emission cycle). Lee ‘132 further states that the brightness of an image with 100 intensity for 100% turn-on duty ratio may be perceived as substantially the same as an image with 200 intensity with 50% turn-on duty ratio. Thus, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, Lee ‘132 teaches that data voltage magnitude for adjacent frames with the same image brightness may utilize different intensities and turn-on duty ratios. Further, ¶ 144 of Lee ‘132 explicitly states that the disclosure is not limited to a same data voltage for the Nth and N+1th frames.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626