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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee (US 2007/0109241) in view of Pyo (US 2021/0343247).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Lee teaches a display apparatus and a method of adjusting a gamma curve [0039]comprising: a display panel (Fig. 1 element 300); and a display panel driver which drives the display panel (Fig. 1 elements 400, 500, 600, 800) , wherein the display panel driver determines a target luminance for a target luminance setting value and a target grayscale value (Figs. 5-7 target luminance YX and target grayscale X) based on a first luminance for a first adjacent luminance setting value and a first grayscale value (Fig. 7 luminance YB1 and grayscale B1 or luminance YB2 and grayscale B2) and a second luminance for a second adjacent luminance setting value and a second grayscale value ((Fig. 7 luminance YB1 and grayscale B1 or luminance YB2 and grayscale B2), and wherein at least one selected from the first grayscale value and the second grayscale value is different from the target grayscale value. (Fig.7 grayscale B1 and grayscale B2 are different from target grayscale X). Although Lee teaches the limitations as discussed above, he fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the target luminance setting value, the first adjacent luminance setting value, and the second adjacent luminance setting value is a value indicating a luminance for a maximum grayscale value.
However in the field of determining a target output for a display Pyo teaches ,wherein each of the target luminance setting value, the first adjacent luminance setting value, and the second adjacent luminance setting value ([0008-0009][0014] teach a target pixel value and adjacent peripheral pixel values are used to determine a grayscale value.) is a value indicating a luminance for a maximum grayscale value([0075-0078][00157-0159][0255-0258] discuss how these values are used to correlate a luminance for a maximum grayscale value).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the display device a taught by Lee with the display method as taught by Pyo. This combination would provide a desired luminance output for a display device as taught by Pyo [0007].
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches a display apparatus and a method of adjusting a gamma curve [0039]comprising: a display panel (Fig. 1 element 300); and a display panel driver which drives the display panel (Fig. 1 elements 400, 500, 600, 800) , wherein the display panel driver determines a target luminance for a target luminance setting value and a target grayscale value (Figs. 5-7 target luminance YX and target grayscale X) based on a first luminance for a first adjacent luminance setting value and a first grayscale value (Fig. 7 luminance YB1 and grayscale B1 or luminance YB2 and grayscale B2) and a second luminance for a second adjacent luminance setting value and a second grayscale value ((Fig. 7 luminance YB1 and grayscale B1 or luminance YB2 and grayscale B2), and wherein at least one selected from the first grayscale value and the second grayscale value is different from the target grayscale value. (Fig.7 grayscale B1 and grayscale B2 are different from target grayscale X). Although Lee teaches the limitations as discussed above, he fails to explicitly teach a processor which outputs input image data and an input control signal to the display panel driver and wherein each of the target luminance setting value, the first adjacent luminance setting value, and the second adjacent luminance setting value is a value indicating a luminance for a maximum grayscale value.
However in the field of determining a target output for a display Pyo teaches a processor which outputs input image data and an input control signal to the display panel driver (Fig. 5 processor 9 [0062-0063]) and wherein each of the target luminance setting value, the first adjacent luminance setting value, and the second adjacent luminance setting value ([0008-0009][0014] teach a target pixel value and adjacent peripheral pixel values are used to determine a grayscale value.) is a value indicating a luminance for a maximum grayscale value([0075-0078][00157-0159][0255-0258] discuss how these values are used to correlate a luminance for a maximum grayscale value).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the display device a taught by Lee with the display method as taught by Pyo. This combination would provide a desired luminance output for a display device as taught by Pyo [0007].
Claims 2-10 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee (US 2007/0109241) in view of Pyo (US 2021/0343247) and Hou (US 2025/0299612).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Lee in view of Pyo teach the limitations of claims 1 and 14 but fail to explicitly teach wherein the first adjacent luminance setting value is less than the target luminance setting value, and wherein the first grayscale value is equal to or greater than the target grayscale value.
However in the field of determining the a target luminance, Hou teaches a method where wherein the first adjacent luminance setting value is less than the target luminance setting value, and wherein the first grayscale value is equal to or greater than the target grayscale value ([0139][0163] teach that finding a target grayscale and luminance value based on testing values greater and less than the target luminance and grayscale).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Lee with the display method as taught by Pyo and the method of grayscale testing as taught by Hou. This combination would provide a method for improved image quality as taught by Lee [0008].
Regarding claim 3, Hou teaches wherein the first grayscale value is greater than the target grayscale value([0139][0163]Hou teaches that finding a target grayscale and luminance value based on testing values greater and less than the target grayscale).
Regarding claim 4, Hou wherein the first grayscale value is greater than the target grayscale value by one ([0139] teaches target grayscale at 100 and 132 and provides testing values at 101 and 133 respectively).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Lee in view of Pyo teach the limitations of claims 1 and 14 but fail to explicitly teach wherein the second adjacent luminance setting value is greater than the target luminance setting value wherein the second grayscale value is equal to or less than the target grayscale value.
However in the field of determining the a target luminance, Hou teaches wherein the second adjacent luminance setting value is greater than the target luminance setting value ([0139] teaches luminance at 100 is 200 nits and target luminance at 132 is 300 nits… goes on to teach second luminance setting at 101 is 195 nits and luminance at 133 is 303 nits), wherein the second grayscale value is equal to or less than the target grayscale value ([0139] teaches a grayscale value at 131 which is less than 132).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Lee with the display method as taught by Pyo and the method of grayscale testing as taught by Hou. This combination would provide a method for improved image quality as taught by Lee [0008].
Regarding claim 6, Hou teaches wherein he second grayscale value is less than the target grayscale value ([0139] teaches a grayscale value at 131 which is less than 132).
Regarding claim 7, Hou teaches herein the second grayscale value is less than the target grayscale value by one([0139] teaches a grayscale value at 131 which is less than 132).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lee in view of Pyo teach the limitations of claims 1 and 14 but fail to explicitly teach wherein the display panel driver determines a plurality of target luminances for a plurality of target grayscale values based on a plurality of luminances in the first adjacent luminance setting value and a plurality of luminances in the second adjacent luminance setting value
However in the field of determining the a target luminance, Hou teaches wherein the display panel driver determines a plurality of target luminances for a plurality of target grayscale values based on a plurality of luminances in the first adjacent luminance setting value and a plurality of luminances in the second adjacent luminance setting value ([0179] teaches the system constructs full gray scale brightness for each sub-pixel in a way of linear interpolation. ([0139][0163]Hou teaches that finding a target grayscale and luminance value based on testing values greater and less than the target grayscale corresponding to luminances) .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Lee with the display method as taught by Pyo and the method of grayscale testing as taught by Hou. This combination would provide a method for improved image quality as taught by Lee [0008].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Hou teaches wherein the display panel driver determines an interpolation luminance for an interpolation grayscale value between the target grayscale values using adjacent target luminances of adjacent target grayscale values adjacent to the interpolation grayscale value in the target luminance setting value, and wherein the adjacent target luminances are luminances in the target luminance setting value([0179] teaches the system constructs full gray scale brightness for each sub-pixel in a way of linear interpolation. ([0139][0163]Hou teaches that finding a target grayscale and luminance value based on testing values greater and less than the target grayscale corresponding to luminances) .
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Hou teaches wherein the display panel driver determines an interpolation luminance for an interpolation grayscale value between the target grayscale values in the target luminance setting value based on a luminance in the first adjacent luminance setting value and a luminance in the second adjacent luminance setting value([0179] teaches the system constructs full gray scale brightness for each sub-pixel in a way of linear interpolation. ([0139][0163]Hou teaches that finding a target grayscale and luminance value based on testing values greater and less than the target grayscale corresponding to luminances).
Claims11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee (US 2007/0109241) in view of Pyo (US 2021/0343247) and Lee (US 2012/0032995).
Regarding claim 11, Lee (‘241) in view of Pyo teach the limitations as discussed above and Lee (‘241) further teaches wherein the display panel driver includes a gamma controller, and a data driver (Fig. 1 gray voltage generator 800 and data driver 500), wherein the gamma controller determines the target luminance for the target luminance setting value and the target grayscale value(Figs. 5-7 target luminance YX and target grayscale X),but fails to explicitly teach a gamma reference voltage generator wherein the gamma reference voltage generator generates a gamma reference voltage based on a reference luminance including the target luminance, and wherein the data driver generates a data voltage based on a grayscale value of input image data and the gamma reference voltage and outputs the data voltage to the display panel.
However in the field of gamma curve adjustments for a display device, Lee (‘995) teaches a grayscale voltage generator 150 which includes the gamma reference voltage generator generates a gamma reference voltage based on a reference luminance including the target luminance (Fig. 7 elements 702-708), and wherein the data driver generates a data voltage based on a grayscale value of input image data and the gamma reference voltage and outputs the data voltage to the display panel ([0026]) .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Lee (‘241) with the display method as taught by Pyo and the method of grayscale testing as taught by Lee (‘955). This combination would provide a method for improved image quality as taught by Lee (‘241) [0008].
Regarding claim 11, Lee (‘241) in view of Pyo teach the limitations as discussed above and Lee (‘241) further teaches wherein the display panel driver includes a gamma controller, and a data driver (Fig. 1 gray voltage generator 800 and data driver 500), wherein the gamma controller determines the target luminance for the target luminance setting value and the target grayscale value(Figs. 5-7 target luminance YX and target grayscale X),but fails to explicitly teach a power controller receives input luminance setting value and input grayscale value and a gamma reference voltage generator wherein the gamma reference voltage generator generates a gamma reference voltage based on a reference luminance including the target luminance, and wherein the data driver generates a data voltage based on a grayscale value of input image data and the gamma reference voltage and outputs the data voltage to the display panel.
However in the field of gamma curve adjustments for a display device, Lee (‘995) teaches a grayscale voltage generator 150 which includes a power controller receives input luminance setting value and input grayscale value (Fig. 1 timing controller 110 and grayscale voltage generator 150)the gamma reference voltage generator generates a gamma reference voltage based on a reference luminance including the target luminance (Fig. 7 elements 702-708), and wherein the data driver generates a data voltage based on a grayscale value of input image data and the gamma reference voltage and outputs the data voltage to the display panel ([0026]) .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Lee (‘241) with the display method as taught by Pyo and the method of grayscale testing as taught by Lee( ‘955). This combination would provide a method for improved image quality as taught by Lee (‘241) [0008].
Regarding claim 13, Lee (‘241) teaches wherein the output luminance setting value is less than the input luminance setting value, and wherein the output grayscale value is greater than the input grayscale value (Fig. 7).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDRE L MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights