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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. Pub. No. US 2022/0084472 A1 [Kim] in view of Lesso et al. Pub. No. US 2023/0030111 A1 [Lesso].
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a display device [Fig. 26], comprising:
a display panel [1510] comprising a plurality of pixels [¶ 27], wherein the display device is configured to display an image at a variable driving frequency [¶ 6];
an emission driver configured to provide an emission signal to the plurality of pixels [¶ 27 an emission driver configured to provide an emission signal to each of the plurality of pixels]; and
Kim is silent on a controller configured to perform a cycle differential driving operation in which lengths of emission periods defined by the emission signal gradually increase in a frame, wherein the controller omits the cycle differential driving operation when a change in the variable driving frequency corresponds to a frequency difference that is greater than or equal to a threshold frequency difference.
However Lesso teaches a circuit for displays with differential driving; namely, a controller [Fig. 1, 105] configured to perform a cycle differential driving operation in which lengths of emission periods defined by the emission signal gradually increase in a frame [¶ 54 where controller cycles differential driving], wherein the controller omits the cycle differential driving operation when a change in the variable driving frequency [where this must occur in absence of driven duty cycle when functioning]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Lesso, since such a modification optimizes processing with respect to voltages. As per the threshold limitations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 10, the claim is now completely to changed to read that “when the cycle differential driving operation is omitted, the controller generates the emission signal such that lengths of the emission periods are maintained across the frame.”
This seems to broadly suggest that “having no differential driving operation” will lead to normal driving (i.e. maintaining the length of the emission period). This will be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in the absent of differential driving, normal driving will happened
As to claim 14 Kim in view of Lesso teaches wherein each of the plurality of pixels comprises:
a light-emitting element [Kim ¶ 2];
a driving transistor configured to apply a driving current to the light-emitting element [Fig. 1, T1]; and
a bias transistor configured to apply a bias voltage to the driving transistor [T2 & ¶ 68].
As to claim 15, Kim in view of Lesso is silent on wherein, when the variable driving frequency changes from a high frequency to a low frequency, a voltage level of the bias voltage in a first low-frequency frame having the low frequency is set higher than a voltage level of the bias voltage in a high-frequency frame having the high frequency. However there are a finite number of level setting corresponding to frequency levels. It is a long-felt need to optimize luminance for improvement of image display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim in view of Lesso as required, since “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1390 (U.S. 2007).
As to claim 16, Kim in view of Lesso is silent on wherein, when the driving frequency changes from the high frequency to the low frequency, a voltage level of the bias voltage in a second low-frequency frame having the low frequency is set lower than the voltage level of the bias voltage in the first low-frequency frame and higher than the voltage level of the bias voltage in the high-frequency frame. However there are a finite number of level setting corresponding to frequency levels. It is a long-felt need to optimize luminance for improvement of image display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim in view of Lesso as required, since “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1390 (U.S. 2007).
As to claim 17, Kim discloses a method of driving a display device [Fig. 26], the method comprising: storing a previous cycle number of an n-1th frame at a start of an nth frame, wherein n is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 [¶ 10 & throughout where for variable frequency previous must be stored as detailed];
comparing a current cycle number of the nth frame with the previous cycle number [¶¶ 112-113 comparing with threshold].
Kim is silent on performing a cycle differential driving operation in which lengths of emission periods gradually increase in a frame when a value obtained by subtracting the previous cycle number from the current cycle number is less than a threshold value; and omitting the cycle differential driving operation when the value obtained by subtracting the previous cycle number from the current cycle number is greater than or equal to the threshold value.
However Lesso teaches a circuit for displays with differential driving; namely, a controller [Fig. 1, 105] configured to perform a cycle differential driving operation in which lengths of emission periods defined by the emission signal gradually increase in a frame [¶ 54 where controller cycles differential driving], wherein the controller omits the cycle differential driving operation when a change in the variable driving frequency [where this must occur in absence of driven duty cycle]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Lesso, since such a modification optimizes processing with respect to voltages. As per the threshold limitations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 20, Kim discloses an electronic apparatus [Fig. 26], comprising:
a display panel [1510] comprising a plurality of pixels [¶ 27], wherein the display panel is configured to display an image at a variable driving frequency [¶ 6];
an emission driver configured to provide an emission signal to the plurality of pixels [¶ 27 an emission driver configured to provide an emission signal to each of the plurality of pixels].
Kim is silent on a controller configured to perform a cycle differential driving operation in which lengths of emission periods defined by the emission signal gradually increase in a frame; and a processor configured to provide image data to the controller, wherein the controller omits the cycle differential driving operation when a change in the variable driving frequency corresponds to a frequency difference that is greater than or equal to a threshold frequency difference.
However Lesso teaches a circuit for displays with differential driving; namely, a controller [Fig. 1, 105] configured to perform a cycle differential driving operation in which lengths of emission periods defined by the emission signal gradually increase in a frame [¶ 54 where controller cycles differential driving], wherein the controller omits the cycle differential driving operation when a change in the variable driving frequency [where this must occur in absence of driven duty cycle]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Lesso, since such a modification optimizes processing with respect to voltages. As per the threshold limitations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 11-13 and 18-19 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.
2, 18 and 19. The off lengths limitations in combination with each and every other limitation when rewritten as detailed above makes the claim allowable over the prior art of record. No modification would be obvious without destroying the base reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Kim does not disclose a controller performing a cycle differential driving operation where emission periods gradually increase within a frame. Lesso’s duty-cycle control is for voltage averaging in a switching circuit, not for emission periods in a display frame. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner acknowledges that Kim does not explicitly disclose the claimed cycle differential driving operation. However, Lesso (¶54, Fig. 1) describes a controller that modulates the duty cycle of switching drivers to control the output applied to a load. In display technology, such duty-cycle modulation is commonly used to control the timing and duration of emission periods for pixels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the principles of duty-cycle control for voltage averaging in Lesso are directly applicable to emission period control in display panels, as both involve modulating the time during which a signal is active within a cycle or frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adapt Lesso’s duty-cycle control to the emission period control in Kim’s display device to achieve gradual increases in emission periods within a frame, as claimed.
Applicant argued that Neither Kim nor Lesso discloses omitting the cycle differential driving operation when a change in variable driving frequency meets or exceeds a threshold frequency difference. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lesso describes scenarios where the duty-cycle control is not applied under certain operating conditions (i.e., “absence of driven duty cycle”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such omission can be triggered by changes in operating parameters, such as driving frequency. The claimed threshold frequency difference is a predictable parameter for controlling when to apply or omit cycle differential driving, and its selection would have been a matter of routine optimization, as established in In re Aller and In re Woodruff. The claimed logic—omitting the operation when a frequency difference meets or exceeds a threshold—would have been an obvious design choice to optimize display performance and luminance stability.
Applicant argued that the threshold parameter is not a routine optimization of a known parameter, but defines a new control regime.
The use of thresholds to control operational modes in electronic circuits is well known. Once the general concept of conditional operation based on a parameter (such as frequency difference) is disclosed, selecting an appropriate threshold is a matter of routine experimentation and optimization, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. The applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed threshold yields unexpected results or is critical to the operation. Therefore, the threshold parameter remains an obvious design choice.
Therefore, examiner believes that the combination of Kim’s variable frequency display device and Lesso’s duty-cycle control provides all elements of the claimed invention. The motivation to combine arises from the desire to optimize voltage processing and display performance, as discussed in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The claimed features are predictable variations of known techniques in the art.
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 AMR A AWAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7764. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
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.
/AMR A AWAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights