DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 2-4 and 11-12, the limitation “wherein updating the set of gamma voltages” should be “wherein the updating of the set of gamma voltages”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220068202) in view of Zhao (US 20240046840).
As per claim 1, Kim discloses a method of driving source lines of a display panel (Fig. 1, #100; [0006]; [0045]; [0064]), the display panel (#100) comprising a first area (i.e., moving image display area) and a second area (i.e., still image display area; [0067]-[0068]), the method comprising:
generating a pixel voltage according to pixel data and the set of gamma voltages ([0052]-[0054]; [0062]-[0064]); and
driving a source line (#DL) according to the pixel voltage ([0062]-[0064]).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach updating a set of gamma voltages according to at least a first refresh rate of the first area and a second refresh rate of the second area.
Zhao teaches updating a set of gamma voltages according to at least a first refresh rate and a second refresh rate ([0053]; [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the set of gamma voltages updated according to Zhao applied to the first area and the second area of the display panel of Kim so as to provide gamma voltages corresponding to the refresh rates of the display panel (Zhao: [0053]).
As per claims 5 and 17, Kim in view of Zhao discloses the method (driver circuit) of Claim 1 (Claim 13), wherein the first refresh rate exceeds the second refresh rate (Kim: [0051]-[0053]; [0078]-[0080]).
As per claims 6 and 18, Kim in view of Zhao discloses the method (driver circuit) of Claim 1 (Claim 13), wherein the set of gamma voltages is updated according to frames (Kim: [0052]-[0059]; [0062]-[0064]).
As per claims 7 and 19, Kim in view of Zhao discloses the method (driver circuit) of Claim 1 (Claim 13), wherein the set of gamma voltages is updated on according to gate lines (Kim: [0055]-[0057]; [0062-[0064]).
As per claims 9 and 21, Kim in view of Zhao discloses the method (driver circuit) of Claim 1 (Claim 13), wherein the first area and the second area are defined by a clock signal (Kim: [0055]-[0056]).
As per claim 13, Kim discloses a driver circuit (Fig. 1) of driving source lines (#DL) of a display panel (#100), the display panel (#100) comprising a first area and a second area ([0045]; [0064]; [0067]-[0068]), the driver circuit comprising:
a source driver (#500) coupled to the gamma voltage generator (#400) to generate a pixel voltage according to pixel data and the set of gamma voltages ([0062]-[0064]), and drive a source line (#DL) according to the pixel voltage ([0062]-[0064]).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach a gamma voltage generator to update a set of gamma voltages according to at least a first refresh rate of the first area and a second refresh rate of the second area.
Zhao teaches a gamma voltage generator to update a set of gamma voltages according to at least a first refresh rate and a second refresh rate ([0053]; [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the set of gamma voltages updated according to Zhao applied to the first area and the second area of the display panel of Kim so as to provide gamma voltages corresponding to the refresh rates of the display panel (Zhao: [0053]).
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zhao in view of Ha (US 20160117991).
As per claims 2 and 14, Kim in view of Zhao discloses the method (driver circuit) of Claim 1 (Claim 13), wherein updating the set of gamma voltages according to at least the first refresh rate of the first area and the second refresh rate of the second area comprises:
(the driver circuit determines) determining a frame update type (Kim: i.e., moving image type/still image type) according to the first refresh rate and the second refresh rate (Kim: [0067]-[0071]).
However, the prior art of Kim and Zhao do not teach (the gamma voltage generator updates) updating the set of gamma voltages according to a polarity parameter and the frame update type.
Ha teaches (the gamma voltage generator updates) updating the set of gamma voltages according to a polarity parameter and the frame update type ([0045]-[0047]; [0060]-[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the source lines of Kim in view of Zhao driven according to Ha so as to provide a data driver for delaying the deterioration of the transistor for supplying a current to the organic light emitting diode (Ha: [0007])
As per claims 3 and 15, Kim in view of Zhao in view of Ha discloses the method (driver circuit) of Claim 2 (Claim 14) wherein updating the set of gamma voltages according to the polarity parameter and the frame update type comprises:
(the gamma voltage generator determines) determining a supply voltage according to the polarity parameter and the frame update type (Ha: [0045]-[0047]; [0060]-[0062]); and
updating the set of gamma voltages according to the supply voltage (Ha: [0045]-[0047]; [0060]-[0062]).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zhao in view of Ha in view of Lee (US 20150145758).
As per claims 4 and 16, Kim in view of Zhao in view of Ha discloses the method (driver circuit) of Claim 2 (Claim 14).
However, the prior art of Kim, Zhao and Ha do not teach updating the set of gamma voltages according to the polarity parameter, and the frame update type comprises:
(the gamma voltage generator determines) determining a gamma table according to the polarity parameter and the frame update type; and
updating the set of gamma voltages according to the gamma table.
Lee teaches updating the set of gamma voltages according to the polarity parameter, and the frame update type comprises:
(the gamma voltage generator determines) determining a gamma table according to the polarity parameter and the frame update type ([0057]-[0058]; [0084]-[0085]); and
updating the set of gamma voltages according to the gamma table ([0084]-[0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the set of gamma voltages of Kim in view of Zhao and Ha generated according to Lee so as to supply a display device in which the overall power consumption may be minimized (Lee: [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-12, 20 and 22-24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of a method of driving source lines of a display panel, the display panel comprising a first area and a second area, the method comprising generating a pixel voltage according to pixel data and the set of gamma voltages does not teach or fairly suggest the set of gamma voltages is updated before activating a gate line to the second area, resetting the first area prior to driving the source line according to the pixel voltage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on pages 7-8 in the Remarks, “Kim does not disclose or suggest adjusting or updating gamma voltages to compensate for these frequency differences. In Kim's architecture, the gamma reference remains static regardless of the spatial frequency distribution (See Kim [0062], the gamma reference voltage generator 400 generates the gamma reference voltage VGREF based on the control signal CONT3)”.
The Examiner, respectfully, does not agree. The prior art of Kim does not disclose “the gamma reference remains static regardless of the spatial frequency distribution” as argued by the Applicant. Kim merely discloses on paragraph 0062, “The gamma reference voltage generator 400 may generate a gamma reference voltage VGREF in response to the third control signal CONT3 received from the driving controller 200. The gamma reference voltage generator 400 provides the gamma reference voltage VGREF to the data driver 500. The gamma reference voltage VGREF has a value corresponding to the data signal DATA”.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference of Kim fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., adjusting or updating gamma voltages to compensate for these frequency differences) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states on page 8 in the Remarks, “Zhao provides no mechanism or teaching for spatially segmenting the display or simultaneously updating different sets of gamma voltages corresponding to different refresh rates in different areas of the screen”.
The Examiner does not agree. In the Non-Final and Instant Action, the reference of Kim discloses on Figure 1, the display panel (#100) comprising a first area (i.e., moving image display area) and a second area (i.e., still image display area) (See Kim, paragraphs 0067-0068).
The reference of Zhao discloses updating a set of gamma voltages according to at least a first refresh rate and a second refresh rate (See Zhao, paragraphs 0053 and 0057).
Therefore, by the combination of Kim in view of Zhao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have the set of gamma voltages updated according to Zhao applied to the first area and the second area of the display panel of Kim so as to provide gamma voltages corresponding to the refresh rates of the display panel (See Zhao, paragraph 0053).
Therefore, Kim in combination with Zhao discloses the limitation of “the display panel comprising a first area and a second area…updating a set of gamma voltages according to at least a first refresh rate of the first area and a second refresh rate of the second area” as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claim 13.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 Nelson Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-8044. The examiner can normally be reached 1pm-9pm.
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.
/Nelson Lam/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
/KE XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights