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 Objections
Claims 1, 15 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an non-emission period” should be –a non-emission period--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0206824 A1 to Go et al.
As to claim 1, Go discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel including pixels (Fig. 1 and 2, paragraphs 0035-0038, where display panel (150) includes pixels (PIX)); and
a display panel driver which drives the display panel (Fig. 1, paragraph 0032, where gate driver (130) and data driver (140) drive display panel (150)),
wherein a length of each frame period is partitioned into an emission time corresponding to an emission period and a non-emission time corresponding to an non- emission period (Fig. 8, 10 and 12, paragraphs 0049-0060, where the emission time corresponding to an emission period is when input vertical synchronization signal ((In_Vsync) is high and the non-emission time corresponding to a non-emission period is the vertical blank period (Vblank)), and
when a driving frequency of the display panel is changed from a first driving frequency to a second driving frequency which is different from the first driving frequency, the display panel driver determines the non-emission time of a first frame period of the second driving frequency based on the non-emission time of a frame period of the first driving frequency (Fig. 10-15, paragraphs 0053-0067, where the driving frequencies are 40Hz and 144Hz and the non-emission time of each frame is the vertical blank period (Vblank)).
As to claim 2, Go discloses the display device, wherein an emission duty ratio of the first frame period of the second driving frequency is determined based on the non-emission time of the first frame period of the second driving frequency (Fig. 10-15, paragraphs 0066-0087, where the duty cycle is recalculated during a vertical blank period).
As to claim 3, Go discloses the display device, wherein the non-emission time of the first frame period of the second driving frequency is equal to the non-emission time of the frame period of the first driving frequency (Fig. 10-15, paragraphs 0067-0087, where the vertical blank period (Vblank) may be the same at each frequency).
As to claim 4, Go discloses the display device, wherein, when the second driving frequency is less than the first driving frequency, an emission duty ratio of the first frame period of the second driving frequency is greater than an emission duty ratio of the frame period of the first driving frequency (Fig. 10-15, paragraphs 0066-0087, where the second driving frequency is 40Hz and the first driving frequency is 144Hz and the duty cycle may be recalculated to have different ratios in each frame).
As to claim 5, Go discloses the display device, wherein, when the second driving frequency is greater than the first driving frequency, an emission duty ratio of the first frame period of the second driving frequency is less than an emission duty ratio of the frame period of the first driving frequency (Fig. 10-15, paragraphs 0067-0087, where the second driving frequency is 144Hz and the first driving frequency is 40Hz and the duty cycle may be recalculated to have different ratios in each frame).
As to claim 6, Go discloses the display device, wherein an average luminance of the first frame period of the second driving frequency is equal to an average luminance of the frame period of the first driving frequency (Fig. 15, paragraph 0077, where the luminance at each frequency (144Hz, 40Hz) is 150 nit).
As to claim 7, Go discloses the display device, wherein, when the second driving frequency is less than the first driving frequency, a peak luminance of the first frame period of the second driving frequency is less than a peak luminance of the frame period of the first driving frequency (Fig. 11, paragraphs 0053-0057, where the luminance is 40 nit at a frequency of 40Hz in 2F and the luminance is 150 nit at a frequency of 144Hz in 1F and 3F).
As to claim 8, Go discloses the display device, wherein, when the second driving frequency is greater than the first driving frequency, a peak luminance of the first frame period of the second driving frequency is greater than a peak luminance of the frame period of the first driving frequency (Fig. 11, paragraphs 0053-0057, where the luminance is 40 nit at a frequency of 40Hz in 2F and the luminance is 150 nit at a frequency of 144Hz in 1F and 3F).
As to claims 15-20, Go discloses limitations similar to claims 1-6, respectively.
As to claim 21, Go discloses limitations similar to claim 1. In addition, Go discloses a processor which controls the display panel driver (Fig. 1 and 16, paragraph 0078, where timing controller (120) includes a processor (126) which controls gate driver (130) and data driver (140)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0206824 A1 to Go et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0075226 A1 to Lee et al.
As to claim 9, Go is deficient in disclosing the display device, wherein an emission duty ratio of a frame period of the second driving frequency is changed from an emission duty ratio of the first frame period of the second driving frequency to a target emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency during a plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency.
However, Lee discloses the display device, wherein an emission duty ratio of a frame period of the second driving frequency is changed from an emission duty ratio of the first frame period of the second driving frequency to a target emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency during a plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0088-0090, where the duty ratio is corrected in steps (830, 840) based on the set target frequency in step (820)).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display device with an emission duty ratio as taught by Go by including changing the emission duty ratio as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to correct the emission duty ratio based on the operating frequency of the display device (Lee, paragraphs 0088-0090).
As to claim 10, Go is deficient in disclosing the display device, wherein the emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is gradually changed during the plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency.
However, Lee discloses the display device, wherein the emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is gradually changed during the plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0088-0090, where the emission duty ratio is gradually changed using steps (820, 830, 840)). In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 9.
As to claim 11, Go is deficient in disclosing the display device, wherein the target emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is equal to an emission duty ratio of the frame period of the first driving frequency.
However, Lee discloses the display device, wherein the target emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is equal to an emission duty ratio of the frame period of the first driving frequency (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0088-0090, where in step (830) it is determined if the emission duty ratio is changed based on the change of operating frequency in step (820)). In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 9.
As to claim 12, Go is deficient in disclosing the display device, wherein, when the second driving frequency is less than the first driving frequency, the emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is gradually decreased during the plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency.
However, Lee discloses the display device, wherein, when the second driving frequency is less than the first driving frequency, the emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is gradually decreased during the plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0088-0090, where the emission duty ratio is gradually changed in steps (820, 830, 840)). In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 9.
As to claim 13, Go is deficient in disclosing the display device, wherein, when the second driving frequency is greater than the first driving frequency, the emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is gradually increased during the plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency.
However, Lee discloses the display device, wherein, when the second driving frequency is greater than the first driving frequency, the emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is gradually increased during the plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0088-0090, where the emission duty ratio is gradually changed in steps (820, 830, 840)). In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 9.
As to claim 14, Go discloses the display device, wherein an average luminance of the frame period of the second driving frequency is constant during the plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency (Fig. 15, paragraph 0077, where the luminance at each frequency (144Hz, 40Hz) is 150 nit).
Go is deficient in disclosing wherein the emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is gradually changed during the plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency.
However, Lee discloses the emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency is gradually changed during the plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0088-0090, where the emission duty ratio is gradually changed in steps (820, 830, 840)). In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to claims 1, 15 and 21, on pages 8-10, lines 17-26, Go fails to disclose, “a length of each frame period is partitioned into an emission time corresponding to an emission period and a non-emission time corresponding to an non-emission period”. Examiner disagrees as Go discloses, “a length of each frame period is partitioned into an emission time corresponding to an emission period and a non-emission time corresponding to an non-emission period” (Fig. 8, 10 and 12, paragraphs 0049-0060, where the emission time corresponding to an emission period is when input vertical synchronization signal ((In_Vsync) is high and the non-emission time corresponding to a non-emission period is the vertical blank period (Vblank)).
Applicant argues, with respect to claims 2-14 and 16-20, on page 10, lines 27-30, since these claims depend on claims 1, 15 and 21, the rejections should be withdrawn. Examiner disagrees for the reasons stated above.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 9, on page 11, lines 1-26, Lee is deficient in disclosing, “an emission duty ratio of a frame period of the second driving frequency is changed from an emission duty ratio of the first frame period of the second driving frequency to a target emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency during a plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency”. Examiner disagrees as Lee discloses, “an emission duty ratio of a frame period of the second driving frequency is changed from an emission duty ratio of the first frame period of the second driving frequency to a target emission duty ratio of the frame period of the second driving frequency during a plurality of frame periods of the second driving frequency” (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0088-0090, where the duty ratio is corrected in steps (830, 840) based on the set target frequency in step (820)).
Applicant argues, with respect to claims 9-14, on pages 11-12, lines 27-2, the claims are patentable over the cited references. Examiner disagrees for the reasons stated above.
Applicant argues, on page 12, lines 3-9, the application is in condition for allowance. Examiner disagrees for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANEETA YODICHKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-9773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
ANEETA YODICHKAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/ANEETA YODICHKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627