DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
*Examiner notes the rejections below are organized by 1) number of references followed by 2) numerical order.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (USPN 2007/0195040).
With respect to claim 10, Park teaches subpixel data mismatch compensation circuitry (Figs. 1-7), comprising:
a multiplexer (Figs. 1-7. At least Fig. 6, item 640 teaches a multiplexer);
a first lookup table (LUT) comprising a first set of subpixel compensation values for a first row of display pixels and configured to output a first subpixel compensation value of the first set of subpixel compensation values to a first input of the multiplexer (Figs. 1-7. At least Fig. 6, item 630a and paragraphs [0016], [0042] and [0095]-[0110]); and
a second LUT comprising a second set of subpixel compensation values for a second row of display pixels and configured to output a second subpixel compensation value of the second set of subpixel compensation values to a second input of the multiplexer (Figs. 1-7. At least Fig. 6, item 630b and paragraphs [0016], [0042] and [0095]-[0110]. Examiner notes a reasonably broad interpretation of “a second row” includes an arbitrary different row from what is used in the first LUT).
With respect to claim 11, Park teaches the subpixel data mismatch compensation circuitry of claim 10, discussed above, wherein the first LUT is configured to output the first subpixel compensation value of the first set of subpixel compensation values based on input image data, a display brightness value, or both (Park, Figs. 1-7. At least Fig. 6, item 630a and paragraphs [0016], [0042] and [0095]-[0110] teach image data includes a gray value for a subpixel. The claim does not require any specific “based on” relationship and a reasonably broad interpretation includes the teachings of Park).
With respect to claim 12, Park teaches the subpixel data mismatch compensation circuitry of claim 10, discussed above, wherein the second LUT is configured to output the second subpixel compensation value of the second set of subpixel compensation values based on input image data, a display brightness value, or both (Park, Figs. 1-7. At least Fig. 6, item 630b and paragraphs [0016], [0042] and [0095]-[0110] teach image data includes a gray value for a subpixel. The claim does not require any specific “based on” relationship and a reasonably broad interpretation includes the teachings of Park).
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) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (USPN 2020/0143750) in view of Bai et al. (USPN 2024/0046874).
With respect to claim 1, Gao teaches an electronic device (Figs. 1-12), comprising:
an electronic display (Figs. 1-12. At least Figs. 1-3, item 26 and paragraph [0036]); and
processing circuitry (Figs. 1-12. At least Fig. 1, item 16 and paragraph [0033]) configured to:
receive image data comprising first subpixel data corresponding to a display pixel of a first row and second pixel data corresponding to a display pixel of a second row (Figs. 1-12. At least Figs. 10-12 and paragraphs [0059] teaches receiving image data for rows);
apply a first pixel compensation value to the first pixel data to generate first compensated pixel data configured to compensate for a data voltage mismatch between the first row and the second row due to fluctuations of a scan signal when the image data is to be sampled in the first row as compared to the second row (Figs. 1-12. At least Figs. 10-12 and paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0052] and [0057] teach generating compensation data for rows);
apply a second subpixel compensation value to the second pixel data to generate second compensated pixel data configured to compensate for the data voltage mismatch between the first row and the second row due to the fluctuations of the scan signal when the image data is to be sampled in the second row as compared to the first row (Figs. 1-12. At least Figs. 10-12 and paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0052] and [0057] teach generating compensation data for rows); and
output the first compensated pixel data and the second compensated pixel data to the electronic display (Figs. 1-12. At least Figs. 10-12 and paragraph [0063] teach providing the updated data to the display driver).
However, Gao fails to expressly teach subpixels (Examiner notes paragraph [0024] of Gao discloses color-rich displays but doesn’t expressly mention red, green or blue pixels or subpixels).
Bai teaches a known technique using RGB subpixels in a color display (paragraph [0030]).
Gao teaches a base process/product of a display including pixels and pixel compensation which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the display includes subpixels and subpixel compensation. Bai teaches a known technique of using RGB subpixels in a color display that is comparable to the base process/product.
Bai’s known technique of using RGB subpixels in a color display would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Gao and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the usage of subpixels which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Gao in view of Bai teaches the electronic device of claim 1, discussed above, where in the processing circuitry is configured to apply a third subpixel compensation value to the image data, wherein the third subpixel compensation value is based on a location of a respective subpixel with respect to a voltage source of the electronic display (Gao, Figs. 1-12. At least Figs. 10-12 and paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0052] and [0057] teach generating compensation data for rows. The claim does not require any specific “based on” relationship and a reasonably broad interpretation includes the teachings of Gao based on rows).
With respect to claim 3, Gao in view of Bai teaches the electronic device of claim 2, discussed above, wherein the third subpixel compensation value is output by a subpixel location lookup table (LUT) configured to output the third subpixel compensation value based on the location of the respective subpixel with respect to the voltage source (Gao, paragraph [0028]).
With respect to claim 6, Gao in view of Bai teaches the electronic device of claim 2, discussed above, wherein the third subpixel compensation value is configured to compensate for location-dependent voltage ripple variations, wherein the location-dependent voltage ripple variations are based on the location of the respective subpixel with respect to the voltage source of the electronic display (Gao, Figs. 1-12. At least Figs. 10-12 and paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0052] and [0057] teach generating compensation data for rows. The compensation is based on the location of the pixel).
With respect to claim 7, Gao in view of Bai teaches the electronic device of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
apply the first subpixel compensation value to the image data to generate the first compensated subpixel data based on a display brightness value of the electronic display (Gao, Figs. 1-12. At least Claim 7, Figs. 10-12 and paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0052] and [0057] teach generating compensation data for rows. The compensation is based on the display brightness value (DBV) of the pixel); and
apply the second subpixel compensation value to the image data to generate the second compensated subpixel data based on the display brightness value of the electronic display (Gao, Figs. 1-12. At least Claim 7, Figs. 10-12 and paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0052] and [0057] teach generating compensation data for rows. The compensation is based on the display brightness value (DBV) of the pixel).
With respect to claim 8, Gao in view of Bai teaches the electronic device of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the first row comprises an odd row and the second row comprises an even row (Gao, Claim 1 and Fig. 6. Examiner notes a counting sequence with first and second results in a first/odd row and a second/even row).
With respect to claim 9, Gao in view of Bai teaches the electronic device of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the image data comprises third subpixel data corresponding to a display pixel of a third row, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to apply a third subpixel compensation value to the third subpixel data to generate third compensated subpixel data configured to compensate for the data voltage mismatch between the first row, the second row, and the third row due to the fluctuations of the scan signal when the image data is to be sampled in the third row as compared to the first row and the second row (Gao, Figs. 1-12. At least Figs. 10-12 and paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0052] and [0057] teach generating compensation data for rows).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (USPN 2007/0195040) in view of Official Notice.
With respect to claim 13, Park teaches the subpixel data mismatch compensation circuitry of claim 10, discussed above.
However, Park fails to expressly teach a third LUT configured to output a third subpixel compensation value based on a location of a subpixel of an electronic display (emphasis added).
Examiner takes Official Notice that LUTs and implementation of a single/monolithic LUT or multiple sub LUTs is well known in the art.
Park teaches a base process/product of a display and first and second LUTs configured to output subpixel compensation which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that a third LUT configured to output a third subpixel compensation value based on a location of a subpixel of an electronic display. Official Notice teaches a known technique of implementation of a single/monolithic LUT or multiple sub LUTs that is comparable to the base process/product.
Official Notice’s known technique of implementation of a single/monolithic LUT or multiple sub LUTs would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Park and the results would have been predictable and resulted in a third LUT configured to output a third subpixel compensation value based on a location of a subpixel of an electronic display which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
To clarify, the second LUT of Park (i.e., Fig. 6, item 630b) can be split into two separate LUTs and retain the same functionality such that it reads on a second and third LUT as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 4, 5 and 14-16 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 record teaches data voltage mismatch compensation (see at least Gao et al. USPN 2020/0143750). The prior art of record further teaches subpixel compensation using LUTs and a MUX (see at least Park et al. USPN 2007/0195040).
However, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest Applicant’s specifically claimed “electronic device of claim 3, wherein the subpixel location LUT is configured to output the third subpixel compensation value to combiner circuitry configured to combine the third subpixel compensation value with the first subpixel compensation value in a first clock cycle” (claim 4 – emphasis added);
“subpixel data mismatch compensation circuitry of claim 13, the third LUT configured to output the third subpixel compensation value to multiplication circuitry configured to combine the third subpixel compensation value with the first subpixel compensation value or the second subpixel compensation value to generate a compensation value” (claim 14 – emphasis added); and
“tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive input image data comprising first subpixel data corresponding to a display pixel of a first row and second subpixel data corresponding to a display pixel of a second row;
cause a first lookup table (LUT) to output a first compensation value to a multiplexer;
cause a second LUT to output a second compensation value to the multiplexer; and
cause the multiplexer to output the first compensation value or the second compensation value to combiner circuitry, the combiner circuitry configured to:
combine the first compensation value with the first subpixel data to generate first compensated subpixel data, or combine the second compensation value with the second subpixel data to generate second compensated subpixel data; and
output the first compensated subpixel data or the second compensated subpixel data to an electronic display” (claim 17 – emphasis added).
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and objected to as allowable for substantially the same reasons, discussed above.
Claims 15 and 16 are dependent on claim 14 and objected to for substantially the same reasons, discussed above.
Claims 18-20 are dependent on claim 17 and allowable for substantially the same reasons, discussed above.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Van Den Homberg et al. (USPN 2008/0316163), He et al. (USPN 2013/0305199), Nakayama (USPN 5,715,376) and Yanduru et al. (USPN 2018/0026583) teach single/monolithic LUTs can be replaced with sub LUTs and vice versa;
Moon et al. (USPN 2024/0127743) teaches LUTs and pixel compensation; and
Knausz et al. (USPN 2014/0198087) teaches voltage mismatch compensation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 830am-5pm PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTONIO XAVIER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622