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
From previous office action on 4/10/26:
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 13-19 are allowed.
Claims 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Applicant has amended claim 8 to recite, inter alia, that the control circuit select “two subpixels” as sensing subject, and compensation circuit to obtain a property value from “the two subpixels”, and wherein the controlling circuits selects “one of the two subpixels estimated to have a greatest deterioration from the plurality of subpixels”, and proposed that previous 35 U.S.C. 112 are overcame.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for the amended claims raise new 35 U.S.C. 112 issues. In particular, based on disclosure from the specification, the “two subpixels” selected for sensing subject are not same as the two pixels in the claim clause of “one of the two subpixels estimated to have a greatest deterioration from the plurality of subpixels”, and claim clause introduce new matter not described from specification (see detailed 35. U.S.C. 112 rejection below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites, inter alia:
a controlling circuit to select two subpixels as a sensing subject from the plurality of subpixels in one pixel of the plurality of pixels based on a deterioration information of the plurality of subpixels…;
a compensating circuit configured to obtain a property value from the two subpixels among the plurality of subpixels;
wherein the controlling circuits select one of the two subpixels estimated to have a greatest deterioration from the plurality of subpixels based the accumulated data.
From corresponding disclosure in specification of instant application, the only disclosed embodiment from specification wherein two subpixels are selected from subpixels from a same pixel for data sensing is found in fig. 4, paragraphs 67-75.
Based on corresponding disclosure from fig. 4 of instant application, each pixel in the embodiment disclosed in pending application includes four colored subpixels: red, green, blue and white.
From the only embodiment disclosed in which two subpixels from each pixel are selected for sensing data:
One subpixel is always selected between a red subpixel and a white subpixel,
the one subpixel selected from the red or white subpixel is the subpixel having accumulated greater amount of deterioration among the red and white subpixels
If the red subpixel and white subpixel are deemed to have same amount of accumulated deterioration, the subpixel having greater maximum luminance among red subpixel and white subpixel is selected (e.g. white subpixel)
Another one subpixel is always selected between a blue subpixel and a green subpixel,
the one subpixel selected from the blue or green subpixel is the subpixel having accumulated greater amount of deterioration among the blue and green subpixels
If the blue subpixel and green subpixel are deemed to have same amount of accumulated deterioration, the subpixel having greater maximum luminance among blue subpixel and green subpixel is selected (e.g. green subpixel)
In summary, one subpixel having greater deterioration is selected from red and white subpixel, and another subpixel having greater deterioration is selected from blue and green subpixel, if white/red subpixels have same deterioration, white subpixel is selected; and if blue/green subpixels have same deterioration, green subpixel is selected.
It is further noted that based on disclosure of specification from fig. 4, the two subpixel having greatest deterioration are not necessarily always selected. Consider, for example the following scenario:
Subpixel Color
Red
White
Blue
Green
Deterioration Amount
300
300
500
500
Maximum Luminance
300
600
300
600
According to method is disclosed in fig. 4, in the above scenario, white and green subpixel would be selected, while blue and green subpixel are the two subpixels having the greatest amount of deterioration instead.
Herein, one subpixel selected from red and white subpixel, together with another one subpixel selected from green and blue subpixel, make up the two subpixels selected as sensing subject in amended claim, as in: “the controlling circuit configured to select two subpixels as a sensing subject…”.
Subsequent claim clauses are also supported by disclosure in specification, as in: “supply the data signal from the data driving circuit to the two subpixels”, and “a compensating circuit configured to obtain a property value from the two subpixels among the plurality of subpixels”.
However, “wherein the controlling circuit selects one of the two subpixels estimated to have a greatest deterioration from the plurality of subpixels based on the accumulated data” lacks corresponding support from the disclosure.
As noted previously, each one of the two subpixels selected (one from red/white subpixels, and one from blue/green subpixels) are selected based on the accumulated deterioration information, however, the selection of the two subpixels are respectively from two different mutually exclusive subsets (first subset of red and white subpixels, and second subset of blue and green subpixels), each one of the two subpixels selected is a subpixel having greatest accumulated deterioration value within the subset from which the subpixel is selected from. The claim clause of “wherein the controlling circuit selects one of the two subpixels estimated to have a greatest deterioration from the plurality of subpixels” lacks support because the deterioration value of the two subpixels already selected as sensing subject are not compared with each other. The corresponding claim clause lacks support and is incompatible with the claim clause that defines the two subpixels as selected sensing subject. Instead, “select one of two subpixels” appear to refer to selecting one subpixel from each subset of pixels (a first subset of red and white subpixels, and a second subset of blue and green subpixels).
Similarity, “the two subpixels” or “the one of the two subpixels” from claims 10, 11, and 12 have the same issue, as “the two subpixels” refers to the two subpixels selected as sensing subject (one from each subset of subpixels), while the subject matter of claims 10, 11, and 12 appear to use “two subpixels” to refer to “two subpixels from a same subset, one of which is selected as sensing subject” (i.e. the subset of red and white subpixels, or the subset of green and blue subset).
The amended claims therefore lack support from corresponding disclosure from specification or are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
The following suggested amendments to claims 8, 10-12 drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, are presented to applicant for consideration:
8. (Currently Amended) A display device, comprising:
a pixel array having a plurality of pixels disposed as a matrix and a gate line, each of the plurality of pixels including a plurality of subpixels, and the plurality of subpixels in one row of the matrix commonly sharing the gate line;
a gate driving circuit configured to supply a gate signal to the plurality of subpixels through the gate line;
a data driving circuit configured to supply a data signal to each of the plurality of subpixels in one column of the matrix through a data line;
a controlling circuit configured to select two subpixels as a sensing subject from the plurality of subpixels in one pixel of the plurality of pixels based on a deterioration information of the plurality of subpixels, and supply the data signal from the data driving circuit to the two subpixels; and
a compensating circuit configured to obtain a property value from each of the two subpixels among the plurality of subpixels,
wherein the deterioration information is an accumulated data obtained by adding the data signals of multiple instances supplied to the plurality of subpixels based on a predetermined equation, and
wherein a first subpixel of the two subpixels is a subpixel estimated to have a greatest deterioration from a first subset of subpixels among the plurality of subpixels based on the accumulated data, and a second subpixel of the two subpixels is a subpixel estimated to have a greatest deterioration from a second subset of subpixels among the plurality of subpixels based on the accumulated data.
10. (Currently Amended) The display device of claim 8,
wherein the first subset of subpixels comprises subpixels of red emission color and white emission color, and the second subset of subpixels comprises subpixels of green emission color and blue emission color.
11. (Currently Amended) The display device of claim 8, wherein when two subpixels within a same subset of the first subset or the second subset of subpixels are judged to have a same deterioration extent as each other, the controlling circuit selects one of the two subpixels within the same subset as the sensing subject based on the accumulated data and maximum luminance of the two subpixels within the same subset.
12. (Currently Amended) The display device of claim 11, wherein when the two subpixelswithin the same subset of subpixels are judged to have a same deterioration extent as each other based on the accumulated data, the controlling circuit selects one subpixel of the two subpixels within the same subset having greatest maximum luminance among the two subpixels of the same subset as the sensing subject.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 13-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims thereof, none of cited prior art disclose as a whole: a controlling circuit configured to select one subpixel as a sensing subject from the plurality of subpixels in one pixel of the plurality of pixels based on a deterioration information of the plurality of subpixels, and supply the data signal from the data driving circuit to the one subpixel; and a compensating circuit configured to obtain a property value of the one subpixel, wherein the deterioration information is an accumulated data obtained by adding the data signals of multiple instances supplied to the one subpixel based on a predetermined equation, wherein each of the plurality of pixels includes a first subpixel which is not selected as the sensing subject and a second subpixel which is selected as the sensing subject, and wherein the compensating circuit estimates the property value of the first subpixel of the one pixel based on the accumulated data of the first subpixel of the one pixel and the property value obtained from the second subpixel of other pixels of the plurality of pixels.
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 PEIJIE SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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.
/PEIJIE SHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2622
/PATRICK N EDOUARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights