DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims filed January 26, 2026 is received and entered.
2. Claims 1 – 2, 13, and 18 are amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. 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 / Amendment
4. On pages 10 – 14 of the Response, Applicant argues that Sato does not “disclose, teach or suggest ‘determining to change a luminance of the display panel from the first luminance level to a second luminance level in response to a luminance control signal received from a host system”.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the newly added subject matter. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jung et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0116922).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 – 8 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0051620) in view of Sato et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0183290) in view of Jung et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0116922).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches: a display device (FIG. 1; paragraph [0047]; display device) comprising:
a display panel including pixels connected to light emission control lines (FIG. 1; paragraph (FIG. 1; paragraph [0048]; pixel unit 10 [display panel] includes pixels PX connected to light emission control lines 155);
a light emission driver connected to the display panel through the light emission control lines (FIG. 1; paragraph [0053]; light emission driver 50 is connected to the pixel unit 10 [display panel] through the light emission control lines 155); and
a timing controller which changes a luminance level of the display panel by changing a light emission cycle in response to a luminance control signal, wherein the luminance control signal includes information indicating a luminance level of the display panel (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraphs [0050], [0081]; timing controller 20 includes light emission cycle controller 25 which includes light emission cycle determining unit 257. Light emission cycle determining unit 257 receives information about the required luminance at requirement luminance receiving unit 253, a driving frequency from driving frequency receiving unit 251, and duty ratio from duty ratio determining unit 255 which together constitute a “luminance control signal”. Light emission cycle determining unit 257 then determines a light emission cycle which includes a corresponding luminance, both of which correspond to the “luminance control signal”), and the timing controller controls the light emission driver to display an image (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0050], [0053]; timing controller 20 controls light emission driver 50 to display images by a light emission control signal ECCS. The timing controller 20 determines duty ratio, driving frequency, etc., which adjusts the output luminance) in a first light emission cycle when the display panel is driven at a first luminance level (FIG. 4; paragraph [0078]; a first luminance level [light intensity per unit time] is driven with a driving frequency of 120 Hz [first light emission cycle]), and to display an image in a second light emission cycle when the display panel is driven at a second luminance level different from the first luminance level (FIG. 4; paragraph [0078]; a second luminance level [light intensity per unit time] is driven with a driving frequency of 60 Hz [second light emission cycle]).
Song fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the timing controller controls the light emission driver to display an image in a third light emission cycle between the first light emission cycle and the second light emission cycle during a transition period when the luminance level of the display panel is changed from the first luminance level to the second luminance level in response to the luminance control signal, and to display an image in the second light emission cycle after the transition period.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Sato discloses a display device that displays images at multiple frequencies / frame rates (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraphs [0023], [0025]).
With regard to claim 1, Sato teaches: wherein the timing controller controls the light emission driver to display an image in a third light emission cycle between the first light emission cycle and the second light emission cycle during a transition period when the luminance level of the display panel is changed from the first luminance level to the second luminance level in response to the luminance control signal, and to display an image in the second light emission cycle after the transition period (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraph [0022], [0023], [0025], [0038]; host [timing] controller 2 controls timing generator 3 [light emission driver] to display an image at a third frame rate [light emission cycle] of 75 Hz which is between a first frame rate [light emission cycle] of 90 Hz and a second frame rate [light emission cycle] of 60 Hz. This period during which the frame rate changes from the first frame rate [light emission cycle] of 90 Hz to the third frame rate [light emission cycle] of 75 Hz and then to the second frame rate [light emission cycle] of 60 Hz is a transition interval. After the transition interval, the image is displayed at the second third frame rate [light emission cycle] of 60 Hz in this example. This sequence allows for subtle changes in luminance to avoid flickering).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Song and Sato to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a display device having a timing controller that controls a light emission driver to drive a display at different frequencies, as taught by Song, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a display device that drives a display to change from a first frequency / frame rate to a second frequency / frame rate via a third intermediate frequency / frame rate therebetween to avoid flickering, as taught by Sato, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Song and Sato would yield the predictable result of a display device having a timing controller that controls a light emission driver to drive a display at different frequencies, such that the display can transition from a first frequency / frame rate to a second frequency / frame rate via a third intermediate frequency / frame rate therebetween to avoid flickering. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the transition period and corresponding intermediate frequency / frame rate of Sato when changing the driving frequency / frame rate of Song. Such a combination merely requires Sato’s transition period as an additional means to avoid flickering in Song. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Song and Sato to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Neither Song nor Sato explicitly disclose that the luminance control signal is received from a host system.
However, as set forth above, the “luminance control signal” is generated by the requirement luminance receiving unit 253, driving frequency receiving unit 251, and duty ratio determining unit 255.
Song discloses that required luminance receiving unit 253 may receive information on the required luminance of a predetermined screen from an external source [host] (paragraph [0079]).
Additionally, please see Jung which discloses that it was known for a timing controller of a display device to receive driving information, including a driving frequency, from an external device [host] (paragraph [0059]).
Moreover, please see MPEP §2144.04(V)(C), which refers to case law that has held that making integral components separable is an obvious matter of design choice absent evidence where there is no difference in operation or function.
In light of the disclosures of Song, Jung, and the above case law, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the teachings of Song so that the requirement luminance receiving unit 253, driving frequency receiving unit 251, and duty ratio determining unit 255 of Song were located in an external device [host]. Such a modification is suggested as possible by the disclosure of Song and the teachings of Jung, set forth above. Merely moving these components of Song to an external device [host] merely separates the components of the light emission cycle controller 25 into two components, one within the display device of Song, the other located in an external device [host]. Merely making separable what was formerly integral is an obvious matter of design choice where there is no difference in operation or function.
Regarding claim 18, Song teaches: an electronic device (FIG. 1; paragraph [0047]; display device) comprising:
a processor which outputs a luminance control signal (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraphs [0050], [0081]; timing controller 20 includes light emission cycle controller 25 [processor] which includes light emission cycle determining unit 257. Light emission cycle determining unit 257 receives information about the required luminance at requirement luminance receiving unit 253, a driving frequency from driving frequency receiving unit 251, and duty ratio from duty ratio determining unit 255 which together constitute a “luminance control signal”. Light emission cycle determining unit 257 then determines a light emission cycle which includes a corresponding luminance, both of which correspond to the “luminance control signal”).
The remainder of this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1 because the only difference between these two claims is that claim 1 recites a “timing controller” whereas claim 18 recites a “controller”. A duplication of the above rejection is not included in this Office Action for the sake of brevity.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Song teaches: wherein the timing controller includes: a light emission signal determination portion which receives the luminance control signal and determines a luminance level and a light emission cycle corresponding to the luminance control signal (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraphs [0050], [0081]; timing controller 20 includes light emission cycle controller 25 which includes light emission cycle determining unit 257 [light emission signal determination portion]. Light emission cycle determining unit 257 receives information about the required luminance, a driving frequency from driving frequency receiving unit 251, and duty ratio from duty ratio determining unit 255 which together constitute a “luminance control signal”. Light emission cycle determining unit 257 then determines a light emission cycle which includes a corresponding luminance, both of which correspond to the “luminance control signal”); and
a control signal generation portion which generates a light emission control signal corresponding to the determined luminance level and the determined light emission cycle (FIG. 3; paragraph [0081]; light emission cycle determining unit 257 includes a portion thereof that generates light emission cycle control signal ECCS that corresponds to the light emission cycle and corresponding luminance).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Song teaches: wherein the timing controller further includes a storage portion which stores a lookup table including information on a light emission cycle corresponding to each of a plurality of luminance levels (FIG. 3; paragraph [0082]; light emission cycle determining unit 257, which is part of timing controller 20, includes a look-up table [storage portion] which stores information regarding required luminance, light emission cycle, duty ratio, and driving frequency), and
the light emission signal determination portion determines the luminance level and the light emission cycle based on the lookup table (FIG. 3; paragraph [0082]; the light emission cycle and corresponding luminance level are determined by the light emission cycle determining unit 257 [light emission signal determination portion] based on the look-up table).
Regarding claim 4, Song fails to disclose: wherein the transition period corresponds to one frame period.
However, Sato teaches: wherein the transition period corresponds to one frame period (FIG. 3; Abstract; paragraphs [0037], [0038]; the transition interval is a time period corresponding to at least one frame. Accordingly, the entirety of the transition interval may be interpreted as one “frame period”. This “frame period” is interpreted to begin at the vertical hyphenated line of FIG. 3 and to continue to at least the end of the 75 Hz period after which the time changes from 11.1 ms to 16.7 ms).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Song and Sato to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Song fails to disclose: wherein the luminance level of the display panel is maintained at the first luminance level during the transition period.
However, Sato teaches: wherein the luminance level of the display panel is maintained at the first luminance level during the transition period (FIG. 3; Abstract; paragraphs [0037], [0038]; as set forth above, the transition interval is interpreted as beginning at the vertical hyphenated line of FIG. 3 which includes a timing during which the display is maintained at the first frame rate [light emission cycle] of 90 Hz having a first light intensity per unit time [luminance level]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Song and Sato to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Song fails to disclose: wherein the luminance level of the display panel is changed to the second luminance level during the transition period.
However, Sato teaches: wherein the luminance level of the display panel is changed to the second luminance level during the transition period (FIG. 3; Abstract; paragraphs [0037], [0038]; during the transition interval, the frame rate is changed to the second frame rate [light emission cycle] of 60 Hz having a second light intensity per unit time [luminance level]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Song and Sato to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Song fails to disclose: wherein the luminance level of the display panel is changed to a value between the first luminance level and the second luminance level during the transition period.
However, Sato teaches: wherein the luminance level of the display panel is changed to a value between the first luminance level and the second luminance level during the transition period (FIG. 3; Abstract; paragraphs [0037], [0038]; during the transition interval, the frame rate is changed to the third frame rate [light emission cycle] of 75 Hz having a third light intensity per unit time [luminance level]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Song and Sato to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Song fails to disclose: wherein the transition period corresponds to a plurality of frame periods.
However, Sato teaches: wherein the transition period corresponds to a plurality of frame periods (FIG. 3; Abstract; paragraphs [0037], [0038]; the transition interval is a time period corresponding to at least one frame. Accordingly, any portion of the transition interval may be interpreted as “frame period”. Therefore, the transition period as a whole may be interpreted as having a plurality of “frame periods”. The transition interval is interpreted to begin at the vertical hyphenated line of FIG. 3 and to continue to at least the end of the 75 Hz period after which the time changes from 11.1 ms to 16.7 ms. Each pulse of the light emission control signal during this transition interval is interpreted as corresponding to one of the plurality of frame periods).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Song and Sato to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
7. Claims 13 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Song in view of Jung.
Regarding claim 13, Sato teaches: an operating method of a display device (FIG. 1; paragraph [0020]; display apparatus 10), the operating method comprising:
displaying an image on a display panel with a first luminance level based on a first light emission cycle corresponding thereto (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraphs [0022] – [0024], [0038]; host controller 2 controls timing generator 3 to display, via display panel 4, an image at a first frame rate [light emission cycle]. This first frame rate [light emission cycle] may be 90 Hz which results in a first light intensity per unit time [first luminance level]);
determining to change a luminance of the display panel from the first luminance level to a second luminance level (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraph [0022], [0023], [0038]; host controller 2 controls timing generator 3 to display an image at a second light intensity per unit time [second luminance level] when the display is driven at a second frame rate [light emission cycle] of 60 Hz);
determining a second light emission cycle corresponding to the second luminance level (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraph [0022], [0023], [0038]; host controller 2 controls timing generator 3 to display an image at a second light intensity per unit time [luminance level] when the display is driven at a second frame rate [light emission cycle] of 60 Hz);
displaying an image on the display panel based on a third light emission cycle between the first light emission cycle and the second light emission cycle during a transition period when it is determined that the luminance level of the display panel is changed from the first luminance level to the second luminance level in response to the luminance control signal (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraph [0022], [0023], [0025], [0038]; host controller 2 controls timing generator 3 [to display an image at a third frame rate [light emission cycle] of 75 Hz which is between the first frame rate [first light emission cycle] of 90 Hz and the second frame rate [second light emission cycle] of 60 Hz during a transition interval); and
displaying an image on the display panel based on the second light emission cycle (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraph [0022], [0023], [0038]; the display is driven at a second frame rate [light emission cycle] of 60 Hz).
Sato fails to explicitly disclose: the determining is in response to a luminance control signal, wherein the luminance control signal includes information indicating a luminance level of the display.
However, Song teaches: the determining is in response to a luminance control signal, wherein the luminance control signal includes information indicating a luminance level of the display (FIGS. 1, 3; paragraphs [0050], [0081]; timing controller 20 includes light emission cycle controller 25 which includes light emission cycle determining unit 257. Light emission cycle determining unit 257 receives information about the required luminance at requirement luminance receiving unit 253, a driving frequency from driving frequency receiving unit 251, and duty ratio from duty ratio determining unit 255 which together constitute a “luminance control signal”. Light emission cycle determining unit 257 then determines a light emission cycle which includes a corresponding luminance, both of which correspond to the “luminance control signal”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sato and Song to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a display device that drives a display at different frequencies, as taught by Sato, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a display device that drives a display at different frequencies in response to a “luminance control signal”, as taught by Song, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Sato and Song would yield the predictable result of a display device that drives a display at different frequencies in response to a “luminance control signal”. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the “luminance control signal” and corresponding circuitry of Song as the means to match a desired frame rate / frequency and corresponding luminance when transitioning between different display frequencies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sato and Song to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Neither Sato nor Song explicitly disclose that the luminance control signal is received from a host system.
However, as set forth above with regard to claim 1, the “luminance control signal” of Song is generated by the requirement luminance receiving unit 253, driving frequency receiving unit 251, and duty ratio determining unit 255.
Song discloses that required luminance receiving unit 253 may receive information on the required luminance of a predetermined screen from an external source [host] (paragraph [0079]).
Additionally, please see Jung which discloses that it was known for a timing controller of a display device to receive driving information, including a driving frequency, from an external device [host] (paragraph [0059]).
Moreover, please see MPEP §2144.04(V)(C), which refers to case law that has held that making integral components separable is an obvious matter of design choice absent evidence where there is no difference in operation or function.
In light of the disclosures of Song, Jung, and the above case law, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Sato and Song so that the requirement luminance receiving unit 253, driving frequency receiving unit 251, and duty ratio determining unit 255 of Song were located in an external device [host] when applied to Sato. Such a modification is suggested as possible by the disclosure of Song and the teachings of Jung, set forth above. Merely moving these components of Song, when applied to Sato, to an external device [host] merely separates the components of the light emission cycle controller 25 into two components, one within the display device of Song, the other located in an external device [host]. Merely making separable what was formerly integral is an obvious matter of design choice where there is no difference in operation or function.
Regarding claim 14, Sato fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the determining the second light emission cycle corresponding to the second luminance includes determining the second light emission cycle based on a lookup table.
However, Song teaches: wherein the determining the second light emission cycle corresponding to the second luminance includes determining the second light emission cycle based on a lookup table (FIG. 3; paragraph [0082]; a look-up table [stores information regarding required luminance, light emission cycle, duty ratio, and driving frequency. This look-up table is used to determine a light emission cycle and corresponding luminance level).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sato and Song to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Sato teaches: wherein the displaying the image on the display panel based on the third light emission cycle between the first light emission cycle and the second light emission cycle includes displaying an image on the display panel with the first luminance level (FIG. 3; paragraph [0038]; changing the frame rate from the first frame rate [light emission cycle] of 90 Hz to the third frame rate [light emission cycle] of 75 Hz and then the second frame rate [light emission cycle] 60 Hz includes displaying the image at the first frame rate [light emission cycle] of 90 Hz and thus at the first light intensity per unit time [luminance level]).
Regarding claim 16, Sato teaches: wherein the displaying the image on the display panel based on the third light emission cycle between the first light emission cycle and the second light emission cycle includes displaying an image on the display panel with the second luminance level (FIG. 3; paragraph [0038]; changing the frame rate from the first frame rate [light emission cycle] of 90 Hz to the third frame rate [light emission cycle] of 75 Hz and then the second frame rate [light emission cycle] 60 Hz includes displaying the image at the second frame rate [light emission cycle] of 60 Hz and thus at the second light intensity per unit time [luminance level]).
Regarding claim 17, Sato teaches: wherein the displaying the image on the display panel based on the third light emission cycle between the first light emission cycle and the second light emission cycle includes displaying an image on the display panel with a third luminance level between the first luminance level and the second luminance level (FIG. 3; paragraph [0038]; changing the frame rate from the first frame rate [light emission cycle] of 90 Hz to the third frame rate [light emission cycle] of 75 Hz and then the second frame rate [light emission cycle] 60 Hz includes displaying the image at the third frame rate [light emission cycle] of 75 Hz and thus at a third light intensity per unit time [luminance level] between the first and second “luminance levels”).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 9 – 12 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626