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, 7-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwauchi (US 2025/0124869) in view of Park et al. (US 2006/0279490) and Wu et al. (US 2022/0343845).
Regarding claim 1, Iwauchi discloses a display apparatus comprising: a display panel comprising a pixel (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 36-46);
a gate driver configured to apply a gate signal to the pixel (fig. 1, ¶ 47, gate driver 4);
a data driver configured to apply a data voltage based on a data signal to the pixel (fig. 1, ¶ 48, source driver 5);
and a driving controller configured to control the gate driver and the data driver, configured to output the data signal (fig. 1, ¶ 41, ¶ 49, TCON with correction circuit 10),
and comprising: a stress converter configured to generate deterioration data based on input image data (figs. 4-7, ¶ 61-63, stress converter 131 and calculator 132);
an integrated predict function storer configured to output modeling compensation data, which comprises light-emitting element compensation data, based on an integrated predict function representing the deterioration data and a luminance reduction rate (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; plurality of correlation data items indicating a relationship between the cumulative stress and an efficiency residual ratio Rt that indicates a degradation degree of a pixel are determined in advance and stored in a storage device at the time of completion of manufacturing of the display; see also figs. 9-11);
and a deterioration compensator configured to generate the data signal by compensating the input image data based on the modeling compensation data (figs. 4-7, ¶ 52, ¶ 68, ¶ 81-82, corrector 12 outputs corrected gradation based on Rt; see also figs. 9-14),
wherein the integrated predict function is configured to be generated based on a luminance deterioration coefficient and a deterioration time (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined; see also figs. 9-11),
and wherein the luminance deterioration coefficient comprises a ratio of a reference grayscale deterioration rate to a first grayscale deterioration rate (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined; see also figs. 9-11).
Iwauchi fails to disclose driving transistor compensation data, such that both the light-emitting element compensation data and the driving transistor compensation data are generated based on the integrated predict function; and a temperature acceleration coefficient.
Park teaches driving transistor compensation data (fig. 5, ¶ 74-85, e.g., degradation coefficient for electron mobility of the driving transistor determined; see also ¶ 102-109),
such that both the light-emitting element compensation data and the driving transistor compensation data are generated based on the integrated predict function (fig. 5, ¶ 74-85, e.g., degradation coefficient for current efficiency of the OLED and electron mobility of the driving transistor determined, see equations 7 and 8, α(S), β(S); see also ¶ 102-109).
Iwauchi and Park are both directed to display data compensation for degradation of OLED displays. 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 Iwauchi with the driving transistor compensation of Park since such a modification appropriately compensates for the degradation of the OLED and the driving transistors regardless of the driving time thereof (Park, ¶ 109).
Wu teaches a temperature acceleration coefficient (figs. 8-10, ¶ 9-11, ¶ 127-142, weighted averaging performed to obtain decay ratios based on temperature).
Iwauchi in view of Park and Wu are both directed to pixel degradation compensation. 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 Iwauchi in view of Park with the temperature coefficient of Wu since such a modification improves display screen aging compensation accuracy (Wu, ¶ 127).
Regarding claim 7, Iwauchi discloses wherein the deterioration data represents a first deterioration time (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-75),
and wherein the driving transistor compensation data is configured to be generated based on a value of a target integrated predict function in the first deterioration time (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-75).
Regarding claim 8, Iwauchi discloses wherein the driving transistor compensation data is configured to be generated based on the value of the target integrated predict function in the first deterioration time and a driving transistor compensation look-up table (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; plurality of correlation data items indicating a relationship between the cumulative stress and an efficiency residual ratio Rt that indicates a degradation degree of a pixel are determined in advance and stored in a storage device at the time of completion of manufacturing of the display, e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined, lookup table disclosed; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-75).
Regarding claim 9, Iwauchi discloses wherein the deterioration data further represents a second deterioration time that is different from the first deterioration time (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-75, stress time calculated each time a pixel signal is supplied and accumulated),
and wherein the driving transistor compensation data is configured to be generated based on a value of the target integrated predict function in the second deterioration time (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-75, stress time calculated each time a pixel signal is supplied and accumulated).
Regarding claim 10, Iwauchi discloses wherein the driving controller further comprises an initial distribution function storer and a final compensation signal outputter (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 with selector 134 and corrector 12 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; plurality of correlation data items indicating a relationship between the cumulative stress and an efficiency residual ratio Rt that indicates a degradation degree of a pixel are determined in advance and stored in a storage device at the time of completion of manufacturing of the display; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-79),
wherein the initial distribution function storer is configured to output initial distribution compensation data based on an initial distribution predict function (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 with selector 134 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; plurality of correlation data items indicating a relationship between the cumulative stress and an efficiency residual ratio Rt that indicates a degradation degree of a pixel are determined in advance and stored in a storage device at the time of completion of manufacturing of the display; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-79),
wherein the final compensation signal outputter is configured to output a final compensation data signal based on the modeling compensation data and the initial distribution compensation data (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 with selector 134 and corrector 12 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; plurality of correlation data items indicating a relationship between the cumulative stress and an efficiency residual ratio Rt that indicates a degradation degree of a pixel are determined in advance and stored in a storage device at the time of completion of manufacturing of the display; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-79),
and wherein the deterioration compensator is configured to output the data signal based on the final compensation data signal and the input image data (figs. 4-7, ¶ 52, ¶ 68, ¶ 81-82, corrector 12 outputs corrected gradation based on Rt; see also figs. 9-14).
Regarding claim 11, Iwauchi discloses wherein the final compensation data signal is configured to be generated based on a product of the initial distribution compensation data and the modeling compensation data (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 with selector 134 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-79, relationship between emission luminance in degraded organic EL element and input gradation is calculated by multiplying relationship between emission luminance in initial organic EL element and input gradation by Rt).
Regarding claim 12, Iwauchi discloses wherein the initial distribution predict function is configured to be generated based on initial state data of the display panel (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 with selector 134 and corrector 12 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; plurality of correlation data items indicating a relationship between the cumulative stress and an efficiency residual ratio Rt that indicates a degradation degree of a pixel are determined in advance and stored in a storage device at the time of completion of manufacturing of the display; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-79).
Regarding claim 13, Iwauchi discloses wherein the initial distribution predict function is configured to be stored in the initial distribution function storer during a manufacturing process (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 with selector 134 and corrector 12 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; plurality of correlation data items indicating a relationship between the cumulative stress and an efficiency residual ratio Rt that indicates a degradation degree of a pixel are determined in advance and stored in a storage device at the time of completion of manufacturing of the display; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-79).
Regarding claim 14, Iwauchi discloses wherein the integrated predict function is configured to be stored in the integrated predict function storer during a manufacturing process (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 with selector 134 and corrector 12 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; plurality of correlation data items indicating a relationship between the cumulative stress and an efficiency residual ratio Rt that indicates a degradation degree of a pixel are determined in advance and stored in a storage device at the time of completion of manufacturing of the display; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-79).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 4-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwauchi in view of Park and Wu as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2023/0104678).
Regarding claim 4, Iwauchi discloses wherein the deterioration data represents a first deterioration time (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-75).
Iwauchi in view of Park and Wu fails to disclose wherein the light-emitting element compensation data is configured to be generated based on a first deterioration ratio comprising a ratio of a value of a reference integrated predict function in the first deterioration time to a value of a target integrated predict function in the first deterioration time.
Hong teaches wherein the light-emitting element compensation data is configured to be generated based on a first deterioration ratio comprising a ratio of a value of a reference integrated predict function in the first deterioration time to a value of a target integrated predict function in the first deterioration time (figs. 10-13, ¶ 241-244, ¶ 253-266, e.g., see equation 3, L3/L1 calculated).
Iwauchi in view of Park and Wu and Hong are both directed to pixel compensation using degradation curves. 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 Iwauchi in view of Park and Wu with the ratio calculation of Hong since such a modification more accurately predicts the degradation of the pixels according to the structure of the display part and the pixels (Hong, ¶ 243).
Regarding claim 5, Iwauchi discloses wherein the light-emitting element compensation data is configured to be generated based on a light-emitting element compensation look-up table and the first deterioration ratio (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; plurality of correlation data items indicating a relationship between the cumulative stress and an efficiency residual ratio Rt that indicates a degradation degree of a pixel are determined in advance and stored in a storage device at the time of completion of manufacturing of the display, e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined, lookup table disclosed; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-75).
Regarding claim 6, Iwauchi discloses wherein the deterioration data further represents a second deterioration time that is different from the first deterioration time (figs. 4-7, ¶ 53-60, ¶ 64-65, efficiency residual ratio determiner 133 calculates efficiency residual ratio Rt as the correction parameter, Rt represents the rate of the emission luminance of degraded organic EL element with respect to the emission luminance of the initial organic EL element; e.g., see fig. 5, Rt with respect to time is determined; see also figs. 9-11, ¶ 73-75, stress time calculated each time a pixel signal is supplied and accumulated).
Hong further teaches wherein the light-emitting element compensation data is configured to be changed based on a second deterioration ratio comprising a ratio of a value of a reference integrated predict function in the second deterioration time to a value of a target integrated predict function in the second deterioration time (figs. 10-13, ¶ 241-244, ¶ 253-266, e.g., see equation 3, L3/L1 calculated).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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
Prosecution Insights