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 filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues [Remarks: pg. 10, 2nd para. – pg. 11, 2nd para.], that Gandhi fails to teach the limitations of independent claim 1.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Refer to paragraph 20 of Ghandi which teaches that the curve of luminance vs dbv follows a gamma = 2.2 curve anchored by calibrated tap points.
Refer to figure 1a-2b which shows the tap points as values along the curve that follows a gamma = 2.2 curve. Thus, the tap points are gamma values.
Refer to figure 1a of Ghandi, which shows using one elvdd voltage, and the curve following the gamma 2.2 curve.
In paragraph 6 of Ghandi, it is taught that OLED brightness is dependent on emission current and directly proportional to pixel data voltage relative to the electroluminescence voltage supply (elvdd).
An OLED utilizing variable elvdd increasing in steps, provides greater driving range. However, the steps to the higher elvdd creates errors with the curve [see fig. 2, of Ghandi which shows the errors when a step of the elvdd increases], thus unable to follow the gamma = 2.2 curve.
Refer to figure 1b & para. 21 & 32 of Ghandi, which teaches utilizing an offset between tap points such that the tap points are within a given elvdd step to correct for the error and allowing for luminance vs dbv to follow a gamma = 2.2 curve.
The tap points for interpolation would be values along the gamma = 2.2 curve, and the tap points are values on the gamma = 2.2 curve that the interpolated values would be based upon utilizing a function that would represent the gamma = 2.2 curve.
The Offset is set based on the voltage step value of the elvdd, wherein a first dbv, is a first tap corresponding to a first elvdd voltage step value and the offset is set at as a second tap point close to the discontinuity but within the same elvdd voltage step value, see fig. 4. This second tap point is utilized to correct gamma voltages values by preventing interpolation errors along the curve [see fig. 2 of Ghandi] so that the curve continues to follow a gamma = 2.2 curve [see fig. 1b of Ghandi].
Thus, the combination of Kim and Ghandi teaches the argued limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10, 12-13, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210375214), in view of Gandhi et al. (US 20240096275).
As to claim 1, Kim teaches a driving method of a display device [abstract & fig. 1] that changes a power voltage step by step (second input driving voltage vlin2) [figs. 1-3 & 6a-6c & para. 92-98].
Kim does not explicitly teach displaying an image with a maximum luminance corresponding to the DBV, the driving method comprising:
sensing a first DBV where a step occurs in the power voltage;
setting an offset for the DBV based on the first DBV;
correcting gamma voltage values based on the DBV based on the offset; and
generating a data voltage based on the corrected gamma voltage values.
Gandhi teaches the concept of a driving method of a display device [abstract] that changes a power voltage step by step (variable elvdd with steps) [fig. 4 & para. 32-36] based on a display brightness value (DBV) (elvdd-vs-dbv profile) [figs. 1a-2 & 4 & para. 32-36 & 18-20] and displays an image with a maximum luminance corresponding to the DBV (provide optical brightness corresponding to elvdd, elvdd-vs-dbv profile) [fig. 2], the driving method comprising:
sensing a first DBV where a step occurs in the power voltage (a fist tap of a step) [figs. 1a-2 & 4 & para. 32];
setting an offset for the DBV based on the first DBV (a second tap offset from the first tap of the step) [figs. 1a-2 & 4 & para. 32];
correcting gamma voltage values based on the DBV based on the offset (gamma 2.2, based on, interpolation of tap points) [para. 32, 36, 18-20]; and
generating a data voltage based on the corrected gamma voltage values [para. 29, 32, & 6].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving method of Kim, such that the display device changes a power voltage step by step based on a display brightness value (DBV) and displays an image with a maximum luminance corresponding to the DBV, the driving method comprising: sensing a first DBV where a step occurs in the power voltage; setting an offset for the DBV based on the first DBV; correcting gamma voltage values based on the DBV based on the offset; and generating a data voltage based on the corrected gamma voltage values, as taught by Gandhi, to improve image quality, as taught by Gandhi [para. 9].
As to claim 2, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 1, further comprising:
setting a voltage level of the power voltage using a lookup table stored in a memory (lut) [Gandhi: para. 34],
wherein the lookup table comprises information on voltage levels of the power voltage based on one or more DBVs within a DBV range (profile, taps utilized for interpolation points) [Gandhi: para 32-37 & 18-20].
As to claim 3, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 2, wherein the sensing the first DBV comprises:
determining a voltage level at each step of the power voltage by interpolating voltage levels in the lookup table (profile, taps utilized for interpolation points) [Gandhi: para 32-37 & 18-20], and
determining the first DBV based on the voltage level at the each step (determine first tap) [Gandhi: para. 32-37].
As to claim 4, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 1, wherein the setting the offset comprises:
setting a first offset for the first DBV corresponding to a starting point of the step [Gandhi: fig. 4 & para. 32], and
setting a second offset for a second DBV corresponding to an ending point of the step [Gandhi: fig. 4 & para. 32].
As to claim 5, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 4, wherein:
the first offset is set such that luminance of the display device is lowered within a correction range (left of first tap, utilizing a lower elvdd voltage, see left of tap3 in figure 4) [Gandhi: fig. 4 & para. 32 & para. 20-22], and
the second offset is set such that the luminance is higher within the correction range (right of second tap, utilizing a higher elvdd voltage, see right of tap2 in figure 4) [Gandhi: fig. 4 & para. 32 & para. 20-22].
As to claim 6, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 5, further comprising setting the correction range to be the same at each of the steps of the power voltage (utilizing one voltage for the interpolation range, see between tap 3 and tap 2 of figure 4) [Gandhi: fig. 4 & para. 32 & 20-22].
As to claim 9, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 5, wherein setting the offset for the DBV is based on the first offset and the second offset (tap points) [Gandhi: fig. 4 & para. 32 & 20-22].
As to claim 10, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 9, wherein:
the gamma lookup table comprises information on gamma voltages based on one or more DBVs within the DBV range and is stored in a memory [Gandhi: para. 34 & 36], and
the correcting the gamma voltage values comprises:
interpolating the gamma voltages based on the one or more DBVs and obtaining, based on the interpolating, the gamma voltage values based on the DBV (interpolation corresponding to gamma 2.2) [Gandhi: para. 32-36 & 18-22], and
reflecting the offset in the gamma voltage values based on the DBV [Gandhi: para. 32-36 & 18-22].
As to claim 12, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 1, wherein:
the display device comprises a light emitting element [Kim: fig. 2 & Gandhi: para. 26], and
the driving method comprises applying the power voltage to a cathode electrode of the light emitting element [Kim: fig. 2 & Gandhi: para. 26].
As to claim 13, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 1, wherein:
the display device comprises a light emitting element [Kim: fig. 2 & Gandhi: para. 26] and a driving transistor [Kim: fig. 2 & Gandhi: para. 26] connected to an anode electrode of the light emitting element, and
the driving method comprises applying the power voltage to the anode electrode of the light emitting element [Kim: fig. 2 & Gandhi: para. 26].
As to claim 15, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches driving method of claim 1, wherein:
the display device comprises a scan driver that drives a display panel (scan driver 400) [Kim: figs. 2-3 & para. 96], and
the driving method comprises providing the power voltage to the scan driver (second input driving voltage VLIN2) [Kim: figs. 2-3 & para. 96].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Gandhi, and further in view of Pyo et al. (US 20230005438).
As to claim 14, Kim as modified by Gandhi teaches the driving method of claim 1, wherein:
the display device comprises a light emitting element [Kim: fig. 2 & Gandhi: para. 26] and a driving transistor [Kim: fig. 2 & Gandhi: para. 26] connected to an anode electrode of the light emitting element.
Kim as modified by Gandhi does not explicitly teach the driving method comprises applying the power voltage to a gate electrode of the driving transistor.
Pyo teaches the concept of a driving method of a display device [abstract & figs. 1-2a], wherein the display device comprises a light emitting element (light emission element EL) [fig. 2 & para. 74] and a driving transistor (first transistor tr1) [fig. 2 & para. 74] connected to an anode electrode of the light emitting element; and the driving method comprises applying a power voltage (high power voltage elvdd) [fig. 2 & para. 74] to a gate electrode of the driving transistor (vg of first transistor tr1) [fig. 2].
Because Kim, Gandhi, & Pyo are in the same field of endeavor, i.e., method of driving OLED display devices, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the driving transistor of the display device of Kim as modified by Gandhi, with a driving transistor that utilizes applying the power voltage to a gate electrode of the driving transistor, as taught by Pyo, for the purposes of achieving the predictable result of displaying an image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Gandhi teaches the concept of a driving method of a display device [abstract] that changes a power voltage step by step (variable elvdd with steps) [fig. 4 & para. 32-36] based on a display brightness value (DBV) (elvdd-vs-dbv profile) [figs. 1a-2 & 4 & para. 32-36 & 18-20] and displays an image with a maximum luminance corresponding to the DBV (provide optical brightness corresponding to elvdd, elvdd-vs-dbv profile) [fig. 2], the driving method comprising:
sensing a first DBV where a step occurs in the power voltage (a fist tap of a step) [figs. 1a-2 & 4 & para. 32];
setting an offset for the DBV based on the first DBV (a second tap offset from the first tap of the step) [figs. 1a-2 & 4 & para. 32];
correcting gamma voltage values based on the DBV based on the offset (gamma 2.2, based on, interpolation of tap points) [para. 32, 36, 18-20]; and
generating a data voltage based on the corrected gamma voltage values [para. 29, 32, & 6].
As to claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or suggest, “a power supply unit configured to provide a power voltage to the display panel and change the power voltage step by step based on a display brightness value (DBV),
wherein:
the display panel is configured to display an image with maximum luminance corresponding to the DBV,
the data driver is configured to correct gamma voltage values in a first DBV where a step occurs in the power voltage and generate a data voltage based on the corrected gamma voltage values, and
the data voltage for a first grayscale:
changes linearly based on the DBV in the DBV section where the power voltage is maintained constant, and
changes non-linearly or a discontinuously in:
the DBV section where the step of the power voltage occurs, or
the first DBV”, as claimed.
As to claim 21, the prior art fails to teach or suggest, “a power supply unit configured to provide a power voltage to the display panel and change the power voltage step by step based on a display brightness value (DBV),
wherein:
the display panel is configured to display an image with maximum luminance corresponding to the DBV,
the data driver is configured to correct gamma voltage values in a first DBV where a step occurs in the power voltage and generate a data voltage based on the corrected gamma voltage values, and
the data voltage for a first grayscale:
changes linearly based on the DBV in the DBV section where the power voltage is maintained constant, and
changes non-linearly or a discontinuously in:
the DBV section where the step of the power voltage occurs, or
the first DBV”, as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 7-8 & 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aflatooni et al. (US 20160284275).
Gu et al. (US 20160365037).
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 DAVID TUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 10:00AM - 6:00PM.
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 (571)-272-7603. 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.
/DAVID TUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights