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
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2022/0076629) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2005/0062680).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang et al. teach a method of compensating image sticking in a display device (Figure 1, Element 10. Paragraph 49), the method comprising:
storing image-sticking compensation data (Figure 14, Element 302. Paragraph 87) representing a compensation value according to a degradation amount (Paragraph 87) of a pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56);
performing an image-sticking compensation operation (Figure 14, Element 302, Sub-Element Compensation. Paragraph 87) on test data (Element test image data. Paragraph 73) based on the image-sticking compensation data (Figure 14, Element 302. Paragraph 87);
displaying a test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73) to a user based on the test data (Element test image data. Paragraph 73);
receiving a miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) input representing a miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) in the test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73);
receiving a relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63) representing whether the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is brighter or darker (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B) than a remaining region (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 130. Paragraph 65) of the test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73) that is other than the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65); and
determining an additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) based on the degradation amount (Paragraph 87) of the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65), based on the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) input, and based on the relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63).
Yang et al. is silent with regards to receiving the miscompensation region from the user through an input device, the miscompensation region being selected by the user in the test image; and the miscompensation region is from the user through the input device.
Lee et al. teach receiving the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) from the user through an input device (Element not labeled, but is the device that takes the users choice. Paragraph 36), the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) being selected by the user in the test image (Figure 3, Element 301. Paragraph 35); and the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) is from the user through the input device (Element not labeled, but is the device that takes the users choice. Paragraph 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the electronic display device of Yang et al. with the user input of Lee et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Lee et al. is to allow for compensation of the picture quality caused by a burn-in effect according to the user’s desired means, as taught by Lee et al. (Paragraph 10).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 1 (See Above). Yang et al. teach further comprising determining that the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is an overcompensation region (Figure 15, Element Over-compensation. Paragraph 90) based on the relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63) indicating that the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is brighter (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B) than the remaining region (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 130. Paragraph 65).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 2 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the overcompensation region (Figure 15, Element Over-compensation. Paragraph 90) is a negative value (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 2 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein an absolute value of the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the overcompensation region (Figure 15, Element Over-compensation. Paragraph 90) increases (Seen in Figure 15)as the degradation amount (Paragraph 87) of the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) increases.
Regarding Claim 5, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 2 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein determining the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) comprises:
determining a first additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for a first pixel (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 132. Paragraph 65) having a first degradation amount (Paragraph 87) in the overcompensation region (Figure 15, Element Over-compensation. Paragraph 90); and
determining a second additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for a second pixel (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 134. Paragraph 65) having a second degradation amount (Paragraph 87) that is greater than the first degradation amount (Paragraph 87) in the overcompensation region (Figure 15, Element Over-compensation. Paragraph 90),
wherein the first and second additional compensation values (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) are negative values (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B), and
wherein an absolute value of the second additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) is greater than an absolute value of the first additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 1 (See Above). Yang et al. teach further comprising determining that the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is an undercompensation region (Figure 15, Element Under-compensation. Paragraph 90) based on the relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63) indicating that the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is darker than (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B) the remaining region (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 130. Paragraph 65).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 6 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the undercompensation region (Figure 15, Element Under-compensation. Paragraph 90) is a positive value (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 6 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein an absolute value of the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the undercompensation region (Figure 15, Element Under-compensation. Paragraph 90) increases as the degradation amount (Paragraph 87) of the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) increases.
Regarding Claim 9, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 6 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein determining the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) comprises:
determining a first additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for a first pixel (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 132. Paragraph 65) having a first degradation amount (Paragraph 87) in the undercompensation region (Figure 15, Element Under-compensation. Paragraph 90); and
determining a second additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for a second pixel (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 134. Paragraph 65) having a second degradation amount (Paragraph 87) that is greater than the first degradation amount (Paragraph 87) in the undercompensation region (Figure 15, Element Under-compensation. Paragraph 90),
wherein the first and second additional compensation values (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) are positive values (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B), and
wherein an absolute value of the second additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) is greater than an absolute value of the first additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87).
Regarding Claim 10, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 1 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein the test data (Element test image data. Paragraph 73) represent a same gray level for an entire region (Paragraph 106) of a display panel (Figure 1, Element 18. Paragraph 49).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 1 (See Above). Yang et al. teach further comprising:
re-performing (Figures 8A – 8B. Paragraphs 66 – 67) the image-sticking compensation operation (Figure 14, Element 302, Sub-Element Compensation. Paragraph 87) on the test data (Element test image data. Paragraph 73) based on the image-sticking compensation data (Figure 14, Element 302. Paragraph 87) and based on the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87);
displaying a corrected test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73) to the user based on the test data (Element test image data. Paragraph 73) on which the image-sticking compensation operation (Figure 14, Element 302, Sub-Element Compensation. Paragraph 87) is re-performed (Figures 8A – 8B. Paragraphs 66 – 67).
Yang et al. is silent with regards to receiving a visibility evaluation input for the corrected test image from the user through the input device.
Lee et al. teach receiving a visibility evaluation input (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) for the corrected test image from the user through the input device (Element not labeled, but is the device that takes the users choice. Paragraph 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the electronic display device of Yang et al. with the user input of Lee et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Lee et al. is to allow for compensation of the picture quality caused by a burn-in effect according to the user’s desired means, as taught by Lee et al. (Paragraph 10).
Regarding Claim 12, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 11 (See Above). Yang et al. teach further comprising storing (Paragraph 76) the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) based on the visibility evaluation input indicating that the corrected test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73) has good visibility.
Regarding Claim 13, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 11 (See Above). Yang et al. teach further comprising re-determining (Figures 9A – 9B. Paragraph 68 – 71) the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) by again receiving the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) input and the relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63) based on the visibility evaluation input indicating that the corrected test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73) has poor visibility.
Regarding Claim 14, Yang et al. teach a method of compensating image sticking in a display device (Figure 1, Element 10. Paragraph 49), the method comprising:
storing image-sticking compensation data (Figure 14, Element 302. Paragraph 87) representing a compensation value according to a degradation amount (Paragraph 87) of a pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56);
performing an image-sticking compensation operation (Figure 14, Element 302, Sub-Element Compensation. Paragraph 87) on test data (Element test image data. Paragraph 73) based on the image-sticking compensation data (Figure 14, Element 302. Paragraph 87);
displaying a test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73) to a user based on the test data (Element test image data. Paragraph 73);
receiving a miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) input representing a miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) in the test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73);
receiving a relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63) representing whether the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is brighter or darker than a remaining region (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 130. Paragraph 65) in the test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73) that is other than the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65);
receiving a brightness level input representing a brightness level or a darkness level of the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65); and
determining an additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) based on the degradation amount (Paragraph 87) of the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65), based on the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) input, based on the relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63), and based on the brightness level input.
Yang et al. is silent with regards to receiving the miscompensation region from the user through an input device, the miscompensation region being selected by the user in the test image; and the miscompensation region is from the user through the input device.
Lee et al. teach receiving the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) from the user through an input device (Element not labeled, but is the device that takes the users choice. Paragraph 36), the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) being selected by the user in the test image (Figure 3, Element 301. Paragraph 35); and the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) is from the user through the input device (Element not labeled, but is the device that takes the users choice. Paragraph 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the electronic display device of Yang et al. with the user input of Lee et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Lee et al. is to allow for compensation of the picture quality caused by a burn-in effect according to the user’s desired means, as taught by Lee et al. (Paragraph 10).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the method of claim 14 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein an absolute value of the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) increases (Seen in Figure 15) as the brightness level input increases (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B).
Regarding Claim 16, Yang et al. teach an electronic device comprising:
an input device (Figure 1, Element 20. Paragraph 52); and
a display device (Figure 1, Element 10. Paragraph 49) comprising:
a display panel (Figure 1, Element 18. Paragraph 49); and
a panel driver (Figure 5, Elements 84, 86A, and 86B. Paragraph 56) configured to drive the display panel (Figure 1, Element 18. Paragraph 49), configured to store image-sticking compensation data (Figure 14, Element 302. Paragraph 87) representing a compensation value according to a degradation amount (Paragraph 87) of a pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) of the display panel (Figure 1, Element 18. Paragraph 49), configured to perform an image-sticking compensation operation (Figure 14, Element 302, Sub-Element Compensation. Paragraph 87) on test data (Element test image data. Paragraph 73) based on the image-sticking compensation data (Figure 14, Element 302. Paragraph 87), and configured to drive the display panel (Figure 1, Element 18. Paragraph 49) to display a test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73) to a user based on the test data (Element test image data. Paragraph 73),
wherein the input device (Figure 1, Element 20. Paragraph 52) is configured to receive a miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) input representing a miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) in the test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73), and is configured to receive a relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63) representing whether the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is brighter or darker than a remaining region (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 130. Paragraph 65) in the test image (Figure 14, Element 300. Paragraph 87 and Figure 10, Element 202. Paragraph 73) that is other than the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65), and
wherein the panel driver (Figure 5, Elements 84, 86A, and 86B. Paragraph 56) is configured to determine an additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) based on the degradation amount (Paragraph 87) of the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65), based on the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) input, and based on the relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63).
Yang et al. is silent with regards to receiving the miscompensation region from the user through an input device, the miscompensation region being selected by the user in the test image; and the miscompensation region is from the user through the input device.
Lee et al. teach receiving the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) from the user through an input device (Element not labeled, but is the device that takes the users choice. Paragraph 36), the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) being selected by the user in the test image (Figure 3, Element 301. Paragraph 35); and the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) is from the user through the input device (Element not labeled, but is the device that takes the users choice. Paragraph 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the electronic display device of Yang et al. with the user input of Lee et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Lee et al. is to allow for compensation of the picture quality caused by a burn-in effect according to the user’s desired means, as taught by Lee et al. (Paragraph 10).
Regarding Claim 17, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the electronic device of claim 16 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein the panel driver (Figure 5, Elements 84, 86A, and 86B. Paragraph 56) is configured to determine that the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is an overcompensation region (Figure 15, Element Over-compensation. Paragraph 90) based on the relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63) indicating that the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is brighter than the remaining region (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 130. Paragraph 65), or
wherein the panel driver (Figure 5, Elements 84, 86A, and 86B. Paragraph 56) is configured to determine that the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is an undercompensation region (Figure 15, Element Under-compensation. Paragraph 90) based on the relative brightness input (Figures 7A - 9B, Element Lv. Paragraph 63) indicating that the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) is darker than the remaining region (Figures 7A - 9B, Element 130. Paragraph 65).
Regarding Claim 18, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the electronic device of claim 17 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the overcompensation region (Figure 15, Element Over-compensation. Paragraph 90) is a negative value (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B), or
wherein the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the undercompensation region (Figure 15, Element Under-compensation. Paragraph 90) is a positive value (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B).
Regarding Claim 19, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the electronic device of claim 16 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein an absolute value of the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) increases as the degradation amount (Paragraph 87) of the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) increases.
Regarding Claim 20, Yang et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the electronic device of claim 16 (See Above). Yang et al. teach wherein the panel driver (Figure 5, Elements 84, 86A, and 86B. Paragraph 56) is configured to receive a brightness level input representing a brightness level or a darkness level of the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65), and
wherein an absolute value of the additional compensation value (Figure 14, Element 304. Paragraph 87) for the pixel (Figure 5, Element 82. Paragraph 56) in the miscompensation region (Figures 7A - 9B, Elements 132 and 134. Paragraph 65) increases as the brightness level input increases (Seen in Figures 7A – 9B).
Yang et al. is silent with regards to receiving the miscompensation region from the user through an input device.
Lee et al. teach receiving the miscompensation region (Element compensation area. Paragraph 27) from the user through an input device (Element not labeled, but is the device that takes the users choice. Paragraph 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the electronic display device of Yang et al. with the user input of Lee et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Lee et al. is to allow for compensation of the picture quality caused by a burn-in effect according to the user’s desired means, as taught by Lee et al. (Paragraph 10).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the first argument, in which the applicant asserts that Yang et al. fails to teach at least the “re-performing of the image sticking compensation generation operation” of at least Claim 11. The applicant argues that “the image sticking compensation” taking place is only performed prior to and not subsequent to any alleged “determining an additional compensation value” and therefore fails to teach the claimed limitation. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion.
Yang et al. discloses “The process 200 of FIG. 10 includes receiving captured image(s) of a display 18 panel (block 202), processing the image(s) to extract per-pixel Lv-V data (block 204), fitting a per-pixel function to the per-pixel Lv-V data (block 206), and generating extracted parameters and saving the extracted parameters (block 208) (Paragraph 72. Emphasis Added).” Therefore, Yang et al. teaches that test images are displayed, and parameters are extracted and saved to the system.
Yang et al. further discloses “After fitting the per-pixel function to the per-pixel Lv-V data, at block 208, the controller 84 generates extracted parameters from the per-pixel function and saves the extracted parameters. In this way, the per-pixel function may represent a curve that is fitted to several data points gathered as the per-pixel Lv-V data but may be defined through a few key variables that represent the extracted parameters. Examples of the extracted parameters may include an amplitude, a rate of growth (e.g., expansion), slopes, constants included in a per-pixel function, or the like, where an extracted parameter is any suitable variable used to defined a fitted curve. The extracted parameters are extracted and saved for each pixel 82. These values may be stored in one or more look-up tables to be referenced by the controller 84 to determine the response of a respective pixel to a particular programming voltage. Fitting the per-pixel function to a dataset including the known programming voltages and/or the determined brightness of light emitted enables the per-pixel function to predict an overall input/output relationship for the pixel 82 based on extracted parameters associated with the fitted per-pixel function without having to store each individual data point of the input/output relationship (Paragraph 76. Emphasis Added).”
Yang et al. further discloses:
“[0078] In general, the controller 84 may apply the target brightness level 230 to a per-pixel function 232 that receives the target brightness level 230 and one or more extracted parameters 234 (e.g., variables based on the pixel 82). As described above, the per-pixel function 232 may be any suitable function that generally describes the Lv-V characteristics of each respective pixel 82. The extracted parameters 234 may be values stored in memory (e.g., in one or several look-up tables). When used in the function, the extracted parameters 234 permit the per-pixel function 232 to produce a first form of compensation for pixel values by, for example, translating the target brightness level to a corresponding programming voltage. This is shown in FIG. 11 as a compensated programming voltage 236, which may represent the programming voltage for the pixel 82 that is intended to achieve a target brightness level of light emitted from the LED 92 of the pixel 82.
[0079] As mentioned above, this first per-pixel function 232 may not always, on its own, provide a complete compensation. Indeed, the per-pixel function 232 may produce an approximation of the Lv-V curve of the pixel 82 based on the extracted parameters 234. Thus, rather than define the Lv-V curve of the pixel 82 using numerous measured data points, the Lv-V curve of the pixel 82 may be approximated using some limited number of variables (e.g., extracted parameters 234) that may generally define the Lv-V curve. The extracted parameters 234 may be determined based on measurements of the pixels 82 during manufacturing or based on measurements that are sensed using any suitable sensing circuitry in the display 18 to identify the Lv-V characteristics of each pixel 82 (Paragraphs 78 – 79. Emphasis Added).”
Furthermore, Yang et al. discloses “Keeping the foregoing in mind, it is noted that the ΔV map 374 may be updated at various times during operation of the electronic device 10. For example, the ΔV map 374 may be updated during the processing of each image frame, or in response to a change in the input brightness value 368. Furthermore, in some embodiments, the ΔV map 374 is updated one or more frames after the input brightness value 368 was determined for a particular image frame. Other parameters than the input brightness value 368 may be used to select the ΔV map 374. For example, parameters like temperature and/or historic image data may be used in combination with or instead of the input brightness value 368. The input brightness value 368 may be determined independently of an image frame presented or to be presented via the display 18. For example, the input brightness value 368 may be an amount determined in response to a sensed amount of ambient light (Paragraph 109. Emphasis Added).” Therefore, Yang et al. teach that various maps may be used at various times updated thought use in order to change the displayed test image.
Lee et al. disclose “However, if the function of automatic detection is off, the compensation area is set up based on the selection information on the compensation area provided by the user in step 304. The user can locate the area having the difference in picture quality caused by the burn-in effect by using the test screen in a single color output (Paragraph 36. Emphasis Added).”
Therefore, Yang et al., as modified by Lee et al., teaches reperforming the image sticking compensation method in order to produce a new image to a user and the user can provide visible evaluation input. The Office is unmoved by the applicant’s argument and the rejection is maintained.
All other arguments are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented above, necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, and/or the response to the first argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Marks et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2010/0149340) discloses a second compensation dependent on the shape of an image.
Kim et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2014/0146071) discloses a logo detection unit that is capable of sensing an edge corresponding to a boundary of the logo and correcting the brightness of the edge.
Lee et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2022/0398961) discloses a display device that contains an image sticking compensation, similar to the instant invention.
Chun et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2022/0122544) discloses an image region with a logo that contemplates a correction value for pixels in the region.
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 ANDREW B SCHNIREL whose telephone number is (571)270-7690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 6 EST.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/A.B.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights