DETAILED ACTION
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Display Device with First and Second Gamma Voltage Ranges corresponding to First and Second Ambient Light Ranges
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 10 -11 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:
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art includes Xiao and Furihata, cited in the rejection below. The closest prior art does not detail the claim 8 limitations stating, The display device according to claim 6, wherein a ratio of a difference between the first emission duty ratio and the third emission duty ratio to a difference between the maximum brightness and the threshold brightness is less than a ratio of a difference between the fourth emission duty ratio and the second emission duty ratio to a difference between the threshold brightness and the minimum brightness.
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art includes Xiao and Furihata, cited in the rejection below. This closest prior art does not detail the claim 9 limitations stating, The display device according to claim 5, wherein when the ambient light brightness is a minimum ambient light brightness in the first ambient light brightness range, the target brightness of the display device is a brightness, wherein when the ambient light brightness is a maximum ambient light brightness in the second ambient light brightness range, the target brightness of the display device is the threshold brightness, and the threshold brightness is less than the brightness.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art includes Xiao and Furihata, cited in the rejection below. The closest prior art does not detail the claim 11 limitations stating, The display device according to claim 10, wherein when the ambient light brightness is a maximum ambient light brightness in the second ambient light brightness range, the emission duty ratio provided by the emission controller is a sixth emission duty ratio, and the sixth emission duty ratio is greater than the fifth emission duty ratio.
Regarding claim 12, the closest prior art includes Xiao and Furihata, cited in the rejection below. The closest prior art does not detail the claim 11 limitations stating, The display device according to claim 3, wherein a range of the target brightness of the display device in the first operating mode and a range of the target brightness of the display device in the second operating mode do not overlap.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-7, 10, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US 20220319381 A1) in view of Furihata et al. (US 20210012749 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Xiao teaches a display device (Title, “display device”), comprising:
a plurality of light emitting units ([0171], OLED device. [0046] teaches a plurality of sub-pixels) used to provide a plurality of operating modes, wherein the plurality of operating modes comprise a first operating mode and a second operating mode ([0015], teaches the display device operates in a plurality of modes, specifically first – fourth modes);
an ambient light sensor used to detect an ambient light brightness (figs. 10-11, [0138], light sensor 501), wherein when the ambient light brightness is in a first ambient light brightness range, the plurality of light emitting units are operated in the first operating mode, wherein when the ambient light brightness is in a second ambient light brightness range, the plurality of light emitting units are operated in the second operating mode ([0015], “when the luminance value of the ambient light is in a first ambient luminance value range, the display device is in a first mode, when the luminance value of the ambient light is in a second ambient luminance value range, the display device is in a second mode,… wherein the first ambient luminance value range, the second ambient luminance value range,…are different from one another”), and the ambient light brightness in the first ambient light brightness range is higher than the ambient light brightness in the second ambient light brightness range ([0016], “Optionally, the first ambient luminance value range is from 0 to 20 nits, and the gamma parameter corresponding to the first mode is 2.4; the second ambient luminance value range is from 21 to 150 nits, and the gamma parameter corresponding to the second mode is 2.2”).
Xiao teaches gamma control through the use of a gamma parameter or curve wherein the gamma curve is changed for each group of ambient luminance values however, does not detail the gamma control comprises first – fourth voltages corresponding to high/highest and low/lowest gray levels and an absolute value of a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is greater than an absolute value of a difference between the third voltage and the fourth voltage.
Furihata teaches a display driver that includes gamma curve control circuitry “configured to generate a first gamma curve for a first display brightness value (DBV), and a second gamma curve for a second DBV lower than the first DBV” (Abstract).
Furihata teaches the limitations of a Gamma voltage controller electrically connected to the plurality of light emitting units (Fig. 3, gamma curve control circuitry 13), wherein the Gamma voltage controller comprises a plurality of Gamma voltage groups (Fig. 2, see first – fourth state wherein each state comprises a gamma voltage group), and
the plurality of Gamma voltage groups comprise a first Gamma voltage group and a second Gamma voltage group (Fig. 2, see first – fourth states, for example first and fourth states, wherein each state corresponds to a gamma voltage group as currently claimed),
wherein the first Gamma voltage group and the second Gamma voltage group are respectively provided to the plurality of light emitting units in a first operating mode and in a second operating mode (Fig. 2, see for example the first state and the fourth state which are in two different operating modes, “normal” and “high brightness”), the first Gamma voltage group comprises a first voltage and a second voltage respectively corresponding to a lowest gray level and a highest gray level in the first operating mode (Fig. 2, in the first state, see DAC top voltage and DAC bottom voltage. [0020] teaches the DAC output voltages correspond to grayscale values wherein the high/top voltage corresponds to a highest gray scale value and the low/bottom voltage corresponds to a low grayscale value. The first state DAC top voltage and bottom voltages correspond to the claimed second and first voltages), the second Gamma voltage group comprises a third voltage and a fourth voltage respectively corresponding to a lowest gray level and a highest gray level in the second operating mode (Fig. 2, in the fourth state, the DAC output voltages correspond to grayscale values wherein the high/top voltage corresponds to a highest gray scale value and the low/bottom voltage corresponds to a low grayscale value. The third stated DAC top and bottom voltages correspond to the claimed fourth and third voltages, respectively), and an absolute value of a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is greater than an absolute value of a difference between the third voltage and the fourth voltage (Fig. 2, Note the DAC bottom voltage in the fourth state is different than the bottom voltage in the first state. Therefore, the absolute value of a difference between the first state DAC top and bottom voltages is greater than the absolute value of a difference between the fourth state DAC top and bottom voltages).
Furihata is related to Xiao in that Furihata’s high brightness mode, shown in figure 2, could/would be used in high ambient light level environments while his normal mode would be used in low or “normal” ambient light level environment levels. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xiao with Furihata such that ambient light levels result in different luminance states, as shown in Furihata figure 2 first – fourth states, as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale A. Xiao and Furihata include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as both Xiao and Furihata are directed towards gamma control of a display in different modes.
Regarding claim 2, Xiao teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a processor (Fig. 11, [0021, 0143], processor 520 and display driving circuit 510) electrically connected to the ambient light sensor (Figs. 10-11, light sensor 501), wherein the processor is used to determine a target brightness of the display device ([0137-0138, 0143], See processor and adjusting module 502 which determine a target gamma curve which in turn determines a target brightness of the display device).
Xiao does not teach an emission controller and the remaining claim limitations.
Furihata teaches an emission controller electrically connected to a processor (Fig. 3, [0046], see emission drive circuitry 32 and pulse control circuitry 17 connected to command control circuitry 11 and processing unit 2),
wherein the emission controller is used to provide an emission duty ratio ([0021], “an emission pulse duty ratio is indicated for each of the first to fourth states.” [0043], “emission pulse control signal may comprise a parameter specifying the light emitting time or the light extinction time of pixels of the display panel 3. In one or more embodiments, the emission pulse control signal may comprise a parameter specifying, for example, the ratio of the light emitting time to one frame period.” [0046], “the pulse control circuitry 17 is configured to output an emission pulse adjusted based on the emission pulse control signal.” ),
wherein the plurality of light emitting units are electrically connected to the Gamma voltage controller and the emission controller, and the plurality of light emitting units are used to receive one of the plurality of Gamma voltage groups and the emission duty ratio (See [0021, 0043, 0046] as cited above).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xiao with Furihata such that ambient light levels result in different luminance states, as shown in Furihata figure 2 first – fourth states, as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale A. Xiao and Furihata include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as both Xiao and Furihata are directed towards gamma control of a display in different modes.
Regarding claim 3, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 2, wherein the display device has a maximum brightness and a minimum brightness (Fig. 2, see DAC top and bottom voltage), and the minimum brightness is greater than 0 (Fig. 2, DAC bottom voltage is higher than 0 output voltage shown on Y axis),
wherein when the target brightness of the display device is the maximum brightness, the plurality of light emitting units are operated in the first operating mode and receive the first Gamma voltage group provided by the Gamma voltage controller (Fig. 2, see First state, high brightness mode which provides a first gamma voltage group. [0046], “the pulse control circuitry 17 is configured to output an emission pulse adjusted based on the emission pulse control signal.”), and the emission duty ratio provided by the emission controller is a first emission duty ratio (Fig. 2, see first state Emission pulse duty ratio),
wherein when the target brightness of the display device is the minimum brightness, the plurality of light emitting units are operated in the second operating mode and receive the second Gamma voltage group provided by the Gamma voltage controller, and the emission duty ratio provided by the emission controller is a second emission duty ratio (Fig. 2, See fourth state, normal mode, emission pulse duty ratio, which provides a second gamma voltage group),
wherein the first emission duty ratio is greater than the second emission duty ratio, and the second emission duty ratio is greater than 0 (Per fig. 2, emission duty ratio in first state is greater than emission duty ratio in the fourth state, and the emission duty ratio in the third state is 25% which is greater than 0).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xiao with Furihata such that ambient light levels result in different luminance states, as shown in Furihata figure 2 first – fourth states, as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale A. Xiao and Furihata include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as both Xiao and Furihata are directed towards gamma control of a display in different modes.
Regarding claim 4, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 3, wherein a ratio of the minimum brightness to the maximum brightness is less than a ratio of the second emission duty ratio to the first emission duty ratio (Fig. 2 emission duty ratios within each state show these claim limitations).
Regarding claim 5, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 3, wherein the display device has a threshold brightness, the minimum brightness is less than the threshold brightness, the threshold brightness is less than the maximum brightness, when the target brightness of the display device is greater than the threshold brightness and less than the maximum brightness, the plurality of light emitting units are operated in the first operating mode and receive the first Gamma voltage group provided by the Gamma voltage controller, the emission duty ratio provided by the emission controller is a third emission duty ratio, and the third emission duty ratio is less than the first emission duty ratio (Fig. 2, See second state which has a third emission duty ratio that is less than the first state emission duty ratio. Second state operates in high brightness mode which corresponds to a first operating mode. Second state receives DAC top and bottom voltages thereby receives the claimed first gamma voltage group. The threshold brightness exists between the second state and the third state, wherein the fourth state brightness is less than the first state brightness and greater than the threshold brightness. Examiner advises further defining the threshold brightness).
Regarding claim 6, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 5, wherein when the target brightness of the display device is greater than the minimum brightness and less than or equal to the threshold brightness, the plurality of light emitting units are operated in the second operating mode and receive the second Gamma voltage group provided by the Gamma voltage controller, the emission duty ratio provided by the emission controller is a fourth emission duty ratio, and the fourth emission duty ratio is greater than the second emission duty ratio (Fig. 2, see third state which has a fourth emission duty ratio which is greater than the second emission duty ratio of the fourth state. Third state operates in the normal mode which corresponds to the claimed second operating mode. Third state receives DAC top and bottom voltages thereby receives the claimed second gamma voltage group. The threshold brightness exists between the second state and the third state, wherein the third state brightness is less than the first state brightness and less than the threshold brightness. Examiner advises further defining the threshold brightness).
Regarding claim 7, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 6, wherein the first emission duty ratio is greater than or equal to the fourth emission duty ratio (Fig. 2, emission duty ratio in first state is greater than the emission duty ratio in third state).
Regarding claim 10, Xiao in combination with Furihata teach the claim limitations.
Xiao teaches a minimum ambient light brightness ([0015-0016]). This minimum ambient light brightness can correspond to Furihata’s figure 2 second state.
Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 3, wherein when the ambient light brightness is a minimum ambient light brightness in the first ambient light brightness range (Fig. 2, See second state which is a minimum light brightness in the high brightness range), the emission duty ratio provided by the emission controller is a fifth emission duty ratio, and the fifth emission duty ratio is greater than or equal to the second emission duty ratio (Fig. 2, The second state emission duty ratio is greater than the fourth state emission duty ratio).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xiao with Furihata such that ambient light levels result in different luminance states, as shown in Furihata figure 2 first – fourth states, as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale A. Xiao and Furihata include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as both Xiao and Furihata are directed towards gamma control of a display in different modes.
Regarding claim 13, Xiao teaches the display device according to claim 2, wherein the target brightness of the display device is in a proportional relation with the ambient light brightness ([0137-0138, 0143], See processor and adjusting module 502 which determine a target gamma curve which in turn determines a target brightness of the display device. Per fig. 11, this brightness is in a proportional relationship with the ambient light).
Regarding claim 14, Xiao teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein a difference between a maximum ambient light brightness and a minimum ambient light brightness in the first ambient light brightness range is greater than a difference between a maximum ambient light brightness and a minimum ambient light brightness in the second ambient light brightness range ([0016], “Optionally, the first ambient luminance value range is from 0 to 20 nits, and the gamma parameter corresponding to the first mode is 2.4; the second ambient luminance value range is from 21 to 150 nits, and the gamma parameter corresponding to the second mode is 2.2”).
Regarding claim 15, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations. Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the first voltage is identical to the third voltage (Fig. 2, DAC top voltage is equivalent in first state and fourth state).
Regarding claim 16, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations. Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein when the plurality of light emitting units are operated in the first operating mode, the plurality of light emitting units generate a light pulse, and the light pulse has a first light intensity peak value, wherein when the plurality of light emitting units are operated in the second operating mode, the plurality of light emitting units generate another light pulse, the another light pulse has a second light intensity peak value different from the first light intensity peak value (Fig. 2, see emission pulse ratios which are different in first state and fourth state and will thereby result in these claim limitations).
Regarding claim 19, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting units have a first quantity of gray levels in the first operating mode (Fig. 2, teaches a quantity of gray scales in first state), the light emitting units have a second quantity of gray levels in the second operating mode (Fig. 2, teaches a quantity of grayscales in the fourth state) and the first quantity is greater than the second quantity ([0063]).
Regarding claim 20, Xiao teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising a data driver (Fig. 11, display driving circuit 510) electrically connected to the plurality of light emitting units, and the data driver comprises the Gamma voltage controller ([0143], “A gamma adjustment circuit is disposed in the display driving circuit 510”).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US 20220319381 A1) in view of Furihata et al. (US 20210012749 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ray et al. (US 20180114775 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Furihata teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the second voltage is less than the first voltage (Fig. 2, DAC bottom voltage in first state is less than DAC Top voltage in first state), and the fourth voltage is less than the third voltage (Fig .2, DAC bottom voltage in fourth state is less than DAC Top voltage in third state).
Xiao and Furihata do not specify the plurality of light emitting units comprise P-type thin film transistors.
Ray teaches a display with light emitting units that comprise P-type thin film transistors (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xiao and Furihata with Ray such that the light emitting units that comprise P-type thin film transistors as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale A. Xiao, Furihata, and Ray include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as Xiao, Furihata, and Ray are directed towards displays wherein Ray provides a very thin, inexpensive, high-density pixel display (Ray, [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Xiao is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Furihata The display device according to claim 1, the second voltage is greater than the first voltage (Fig. 2, DAC Top voltage in first state is greater than DAC bottom voltage in first state), and the fourth voltage is greater than the third voltage (DAC Top voltage in fourth state is greater than DAC bottom voltage in third state).
Xiao and Furihata do not specify the plurality of light emitting units comprise N-type thin film transistors.
Ray teaches a display with light emitting units that comprise N-type thin film transistors (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xiao and Furihata with Ray such that the light emitting units that comprise N-type thin film transistors as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale A. Xiao, Furihata, and Ray include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as Xiao, Furihata, and Ray are directed towards displays wherein Ray provides a very thin, inexpensive, high-density pixel display (Ray, [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20250299609 A1, Pyo is related to applicant claim 2 teaching emission duty ratios and their relationship to luminance .
US 20130169693 A1, Pyo is also related to applicant claim 2 teaching gamma dimming groups, and emission duty ratios.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10 AM - 6 PM, EST.
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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at (571) 272-2963. 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.
/NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2629