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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13, 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noh et al. (US 2022/0366843 A1, hereinafter “Noh”).
As to claim 1, Noh (Fig. 2) discloses a display apparatus (DD) comprising:
a display panel (DP);
a data driver (SDB) configured to output a data voltage to the display panel (DS; Para. 0061); and
a driving controller (CP) configured to control the data driver (Para. 0059), to determine a compensation target image (Fig. 1 element CA; Para. 0055), to determine a compensation area based on the compensation target image (Fig. 4 elements SAR1, SAR2, SAR3; Para. 0074-0084), and to compensate input image data such that a compensation degree of a boundary portion of the compensation area is greater than a compensation degree of a central portion of the compensation area (Para. 0087-0089).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 18 and the similar device of claim 21.
As to claim 2, Noh discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a scale factor of the boundary portion of the compensation area is less than a scale factor of the central portion of the compensation area (Para. 0089).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 19.
As to claim 13, Noh (Fig. 1) discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the compensation area (CA) is inside of a rectangle representing a static pattern (LOGO),
wherein a vertical scale factor decreases from a vertical direction central portion to vertical direction boundary portions in the rectangle (Fig. 4; Para. 0081), and
wherein a horizontal scale factor decreases from a horizontal direction central portion to horizontal direction boundary portions in the rectangle (Para. 0081).
As to claim 22, Noh discloses the electronic device of claim 21, wherein the electronic device comprises a smartphone, a television, a monitor, a tablet, an electric vehicle, a mobile phone, a tablet personal computer (PC), a mobile communication terminal, an electronic notebook, an electronic book, a portable multimedia player (PMP), a navigation device, an ultra-mobile PC (UMPC), a laptop computer, a billboard, an Internet of Things (loT) device, a smartwatch, a watch phone, or a head-mounted display (HMD) (Fig. 1; Para. 0046).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0221607 A1, hereinafter “Li”).
As to claim 3, Noh does not disclose the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a red scale factor of red data corresponding to the compensation area, a green scale factor of green data corresponding to the compensation area, and a blue scale factor of blue data corresponding to the compensation area are different from one another.
However, Li (Fig. 5) teaches wherein a red scale factor of red data corresponding to the compensation area, a green scale factor of green data corresponding to the compensation area, and a blue scale factor of blue data corresponding to the compensation area are different from one another (Para. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Li to use different compensation coefficient for the different color pixels in the device disclosed by Noh. The motivation would have been to apply compensation according to the ageing degree (Li; Para. 0011).
As to claim 4, Noh in view of Li discloses the display apparatus of claim 3. Li, further, teaches wherein the red scale factor of the red data corresponding to the compensation area is less than the green scale factor of the green data corresponding to the compensation area (Para. 0178, it is merely a result effective variable to have slightly different compensation coefficient for red and green pixels), and
wherein the blue scale factor of the blue data corresponding to the compensation area is less than the red scale factor of the red data corresponding to the compensation area (Para. 0010).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin (US 2016/0086537 A1, hereinafter “Shin”).
As to claim 9, Noh does not disclose the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the compensation area is between a first rectangle, and a second rectangle in the first rectangle.
However, Shin (Fig. 6) teaches wherein the compensation area (A) is between a first rectangle (N), and a second rectangle (D, it is merely a result effective variable to have a rectangular degraded area) in the first rectangle (A; Para. 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Shin to compensate the boundary area of the degraded area in the device disclosed by Noh. The motivation would have been to linearly compensate for the luminance difference between the normal area and the degraded area (Shin; Para. 0074).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh and Shin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chu et al. (US 2020/0152154 A1, hereinafter “Chu”).
As to claim 10, Noh in view of Shin disclose the display apparatus of claim 9. Noh in view of Shin does not disclose wherein the compensation area between the first rectangle and the second rectangle comprises:
a first vertical division area defined by a portion of a first horizontal side of the first rectangle, a portion of a second horizontal side of the first rectangle, a first vertical side of the first rectangle, and an extended line of a first vertical side of the second rectangle;
a second vertical division area defined by another portion of the first horizontal side of the first rectangle, a first horizontal side of the second rectangle, a portion of the extended line of the first vertical side of the second rectangle, and a portion of an extended line of a second vertical side of the second rectangle;
a third vertical division area defined by a second horizontal side of the second rectangle, another portion of the second horizontal side of the first rectangle, yet another portion of the extended line of the first vertical side of the second rectangle, and another portion of the extended line of the second vertical side of the second rectangle; and
a fourth vertical division area defined by yet another portion of the first horizontal side of the first rectangle, yet another portion of the second horizontal side of the first rectangle, the extended line of the second vertical side of the second rectangle, and a second vertical side of the first rectangle,
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a vertical direction central portion to vertical direction boundary portions in the first vertical division area,
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a vertical direction central portion to vertical direction boundary portions in the second vertical division area,
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a vertical direction central portion to vertical direction boundary portions in the third vertical division area, and
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a vertical direction central portion to vertical direction boundary portions in the fourth vertical division area.
However, Chu (Fig. 8) teaches wherein the compensation area between the first rectangle (outer border) and the second rectangle (W1) comprises:
a first vertical division area (W3) defined by a portion of a first horizontal side of the first rectangle (top border line), a portion of a second horizontal side of the first rectangle (bottom border line), a first vertical side of the first rectangle (left border line), and an extended line of a first vertical side of the second rectangle (left side of W1);
a second vertical division area (W2) defined by another portion of the first horizontal side of the first rectangle (top left border line), a first horizontal side of the second rectangle (top left W1 line), a portion of the extended line of the first vertical side of the second rectangle (left w1 line), and a portion of an extended line of a second vertical side of the second rectangle (right w1 line);
a third vertical division area (W5) defined by a second horizontal side of the second rectangle (bottom w1 side), another portion of the second horizontal side of the first rectangle, yet another portion of the extended line of the first vertical side of the second rectangle, and another portion of the extended line of the second vertical side of the second rectangle; and
a fourth vertical division area (W4) defined by yet another portion of the first horizontal side of the first rectangle (top border line), yet another portion of the second horizontal side of the first rectangle (bottom border line), the extended line of the second vertical side of the second rectangle (right W1 line), and a second vertical side of the first rectangle (right border line),
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a vertical direction central portion to vertical direction boundary portions in the first vertical division area (Para. 0137-0141; Noh, as discussed above discloses larger compensation coefficient for the central region, Para. 0089),
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a vertical direction central portion to vertical direction boundary portions in the second vertical division area (Para. 0137-0141; Noh, as discussed above discloses larger compensation coefficient for the central region, Para. 0089),
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a vertical direction central portion to vertical direction boundary portions in the third vertical division area (Para. 0137-0141; Noh, as discussed above discloses larger compensation coefficient for the central region, Para. 0089), and
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a vertical direction central portion to vertical direction boundary portions in the fourth vertical division area (Para. 0137-0141; Noh, as discussed above discloses larger compensation coefficient for the central region, Para. 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chu to divide the compensation area into multiple areas in the device disclosed by No/Shin. The motivation would have been to compensate the central region with a higher precision (Chu; Para. 0107).
As to claim 11, Similarly, Noh in view of Shin teaches the display apparatus of claim 9. Chu (Fig. 8) further teaches wherein the compensation area between the first rectangle (border area) and the second rectangle (W1) comprises:
a first horizontal division area (W3) defined by a first horizontal side of the first rectangle (top border line), an extended line of a first horizontal side of the second rectangle (top w1 side), a portion of a first vertical side of the first rectangle (right border line), and a portion of a second vertical side of the first rectangle (left border line);
a second horizontal division area (W2) defined by a portion of the extended line of the first horizontal side of the second rectangle (left W1 line), a portion of an extended line of a second horizontal side of the second rectangle (right w1 line), another portion of the first vertical side of the first rectangle (left top border line), and a first vertical side of the second rectangle (left w1 line);
a third horizontal division area (W5) defined by another portion of the extended line of the first horizontal side of the second rectangle (left W1 line), another portion of the extended line of the second horizontal side of the second rectangle (right w1 line), a second vertical side of the second rectangle (right w1 line), and another portion of the second vertical side of the first rectangle (right border line); and
a fourth horizontal division area (W4) defined by the extended line of the second horizontal side of the second rectangle (bottom w1 line), a second horizontal side of the first rectangle (bottom border line), yet another portion of the first vertical side of the first rectangle (left w1 side), and yet another portion of the second vertical side of the first rectangle (right w1 line),
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a horizontal direction central portion to horizontal direction boundary portions in the first horizontal division area (Para. 0137-0141; Noh, as discussed above discloses larger compensation coefficient for the central region, Para. 0089),
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a horizontal direction central portion to horizontal direction boundary portions in the second horizontal division area (Para. 0137-0141; Noh, as discussed above discloses larger compensation coefficient for the central region, Para. 0089),
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a horizontal direction central portion to horizontal direction boundary portions in the third horizontal division area (Para. 0137-0141; Noh, as discussed above discloses larger compensation coefficient for the central region, Para. 0089), and
wherein the driving controller is configured to decrease a scale factor from a horizontal direction central portion to horizontal direction boundary portions in the fourth horizontal division area (Para. 0137-0141; Noh, as discussed above discloses larger compensation coefficient for the central region, Para. 0089).
Claim(s) 5, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2020/0372859 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
As to claim 5, Noh (Fig. 1) discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the driving controller is further configured to determine a first pixel group (LIM) and a second pixel group (LBI),
Noh does not disclose to determine a compensation cycle and a number of compensation operations.
However, Kim teaches to determine a compensation cycle and a number of compensation operations (Para. 0060, 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kim to adjust the operation cycle in the device disclosed by Noh. The motivation would have been to reduce the power consumption of the display device (Kim; Para. 0063).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 20.
As to claim 15, Noh (Fig. 2) discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the driving controller comprises:
a compensation-area determiner (BCB) configured to determine the compensation area (Fig. 1 element CA) corresponding to the compensation target image (Para. 0068); and
a scale-factor determiner configured to determine a scale factor for decreasing a luminance of the compensation target image (Para. 0068, 0093).
Noh does not disclose a compensation-cycle determiner configured to determine a compensation cycle;
a compensation-operation determiner configured to determine a number of compensation operations.
However, Kim teaches a compensation-cycle determiner configured to determine a compensation cycle (Para. 0063);
a compensation-operation determiner configured to determine a number of compensation operations (Para. 0060, 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kim to adjust the operation cycle in the device disclosed by Noh. The motivation would have been to reduce the power consumption of the display device (Kim; Para. 0063).
As to claim 16, Noh (Fig. 6) discloses the display apparatus of claim 15, wherein the driving controller further comprises:
an image analyzer (BCB_b) configured to determine an image pattern by analyzing the input image data (Para. 0096); and
an entry-condition determiner (EXB) configured to determine whether the image pattern continues for a threshold time or longer (Para. 0068, 0096).
As to claim 17, Noh (Fig. 6) discloses the display apparatus of claim 16, wherein the compensation-area determiner (CB1_b), the compensation-cycle determiner, the compensation-operation determiner, and the scale-factor determiner (CB2_b) are configured to operate in response to an enable signal of the entry-condition determiner (Para. 0096-0098; Kim, as discussed above, discloses compensation-cycle determiner and compensation-operation determiner).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh and Shin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yoshii (US 2022/0148527 A1, hereinafter “Yoshii”).
As to claim 12, Noh in view of Shin teaches the display apparatus of claim 9. Chu (Fig. 8), wherein the compensation area between the first rectangle (border lines) and the second rectangle (W1) is divided into a plurality of vertical division area (W2, W3) along an extended line of a first vertical side of the second rectangle (W2), and an extended line of a second vertical side of the second rectangle (W2),
wherein the compensation area between the first rectangle and the second rectangle is divided into a plurality of horizontal division area (W4, W5) along an extended line of a first horizontal side of the second rectangle, and an extended line of a second horizontal side of the second rectangle (W1).
Chu does not disclose wherein a vertical scale factor of a vertical direction is determined in the vertical division area,
wherein a horizontal scale factor of a horizontal direction is determined in the horizontal division area, and
wherein a final scale factor of a position in the compensation area is determined by multiplying the vertical scale factor and the horizontal scale factor.
However, Yoshii teaches wherein a vertical scale factor of a vertical direction is determined in the vertical division area (Para. 0147),
wherein a horizontal scale factor of a horizontal direction is determined in the horizontal division area (Para. 0147), and
wherein a final scale factor of a position in the compensation area is determined by multiplying the vertical scale factor and the horizontal scale factor (Para. 0147, 0215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Yoshii to perform sum-product operation of horizontal and vertical regions in the device disclosed by Noh. The motivation would have been to reduce the size of the signal processing circuit (Yoshii; Para. 0095).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshii (US 2022/0148527 A1, hereinafter “Yoshii”).
As to claim 14, Noh does not disclose the display apparatus of claim 13, wherein a final scale factor of a position in the compensation area is determined by multiplying the vertical scale factor and the horizontal scale factor.
However, Yoshii teaches wherein a final scale factor of a position in the compensation area is determined by multiplying the vertical scale factor and the horizontal scale factor (Para. 0147, 0215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Yoshii to perform sum-product operation of horizontal and vertical regions in the device disclosed by Noh. The motivation would have been to reduce the size of the signal processing circuit (Yoshii; Para. 0095).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Zha (US 2019/0197971 A1) discloses different compensation coefficient for a first frame image and a second frame image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Will 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2625