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 .
In the response to this Office action, the Office respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Office in prosecuting this application.
The Office has cited particular figures, elements, paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the Office.
Status of Claims
- Applicant’s Amendment filed March 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
- Claim(s) 1-2,m 4-7, 10 is/are amended
- Claim(s) 3 is/are canceled
- Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10 is/are pending in the application.
This action is FINAL
Drawings
Examiner respectfully withdraws the objection to the drawings. Applicant’s amendment has rendered the objection moot.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner respectfully withdraws the rejection under 35 USC 112. Applicant’s amendment has rendered the rejection moot.
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) 1-4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220262295 in view of Noh et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220036812.
Consider claim 1, Kim teaches a display device comprising: a display panel on which pixels are arranged (see Kim figure 1, element 100, PXL);
a controller configured to control the pixels in a first driving frequency in a first period and to control the pixels in a
a data driver configured to receive data output from the controller (see Kim paragraph 0066 where timing controller 410 may provide the compensated data signal to the data driver 310 during an image display (or an active) period),
generate, using the received data, a data voltage and output the data voltage to the pixels through data lines (see Kim paragraph 0057-0058, 0066 where data driver 310 may be supplied with a data control signal from the timing controller 410, may convert digital image data (or image data) into an analog data signal (or a data voltage) in response to the data control signal, and may provide the data voltage (or the data signal) to the data line DL),
wherein the first period includes at least one frame each comprising of a first active period and a first blank period (see Kim figure 5, element Active, Vertical Blank and paragraph 0107 where during each vertical blank period Vertical Blank, the display device may select at least one pixel PXL (or pixels PXL disposed on one horizontal line), may perform a sensing of characteristics of the selected pixel PXL, and may apply a re-write data voltage REDATA for reconstructing a previous image display state after the sensing. A current frame and a subsequent frame each include a vertical blank period),
wherein the second period includes at least one other frame each comprising a second active period and a second blank period (see Kim figure 5, element Active, Vertical Blank and paragraph 0107 where during each vertical blank period Vertical Blank, the display device may select at least one pixel PXL (or pixels PXL disposed on one horizontal line), may perform a sensing of characteristics of the selected pixel PXL, and may apply a re-write data voltage REDATA for reconstructing a previous image display state after the sensing. A current frame and a subsequent frame each include a vertical blank period),
wherein the data driver is configured to output first data voltage during the first blank period of the first period (see Kim figure 5, element re-write, REDATA, figure 6, 415a, REDAT and paragraphs 0128-0130 where rewrite data voltage REDATA is provided during the blank period) and to output a second data voltage each vertical blank period Vertical Blank, the display device may select at least one pixel PXL (or pixels PXL disposed on one horizontal line), may perform a sensing of characteristics of the selected pixel PXL, and may apply a re-write data voltage REDATA for reconstructing a previous image display state after the sensing. A current frame and a subsequent frame each include a vertical blank period), and
Kim does not appear to specifically disclose controlling pixels in a second driving frequency in a second period. However, close inspection of paragraph 0167 discloses “The lookup table may store data about grayscale correction rates depending on the numbers and/or locations of sensing control lines SSL and/or the sensing pixels PXL in consideration of a grayscale variation attributable to a driving frequency or the like”.
In a related field of endeavor, Noh teaches a variable frame frequency display including a second driving frequency is lower than a first driving frequency and a second data voltage is smaller than a first data voltage (see Noh paragraph 0110 where compensation gain may be set to be highest with respect to a pixel group line (for example, a pixel group line supplied with SCAN(1) in the N.sup.th frame) where a length of the luminance recovery period RTME is shortest and may be set to be lowest with respect to a pixel group line (for example, a pixel group line supplied with SCAN(m) in the N.sup.th frame) where a length of the luminance recovery period RTME is longest) so as to facilitate luminance recovery for a variable frame frequency display.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have modified Kim with the teachings of Noh to have a variable frame frequency display including the second driving frequency is lower than the first driving frequency and the second data voltage is smaller than the first data voltage as disclosed by Noh using known techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 2, Kim as modified by Noh teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the data driver is configured to apply the first data voltage and the second data voltage to the pixels through data lines during the first and second blank periods, respectively (see Kim figure 5, element re-write, REDATA, figure 6, 415a, REDAT and paragraphs 0128-0130, 0167 where rewrite data voltage REDATA is provided during the blank period. and paragraph 0107 where during each vertical blank period Vertical Blank, the display device may select at least one pixel PXL (or pixels PXL disposed on one horizontal line), may perform a sensing of characteristics of the selected pixel PXL, and may apply a re-write data voltage REDATA for reconstructing a previous image display state after the sensing. A current frame and a subsequent frame each include a vertical blank period).
Claim 3 canceled
Consider claim 4, Kim as modified by Noh teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein, during the first blank period or the second blank period, the first data voltage or the second data voltage is variable (see Kim paragraph 0167 where the lookup table may store data about grayscale correction rates depending on the numbers and/or locations of sensing control lines SSL and/or the sensing pixels PXL in consideration of a grayscale variation attributable to a driving frequency or the like).
Consider claim 8, Kim as modified by Noh teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches wherein the controller comprises: a frequency calculating unit configured to calculate the first driving frequency and the second driving frequency based on an input time of pulses of a control signal input from outside (see Noh paragraph 0093 where timing controller may determine a frame frequency of each frame with reference to the input data enable signal I-DE transferred from the host system).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220262295 and Noh et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220036812 in view of Kim et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210049958 (Kim958).
Consider claim 5, Kim as modified by Noh teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Kim is silent regarding wherein, during the second blank period, the second data voltage is decreased stepwise.
In a related field of endeavor, Kim958 teaches controlling a voltage to be changed stepwise according to a frequency so as to provide a suitable waveform to maintain luminance (see Kim958 paragraph 0120, 0193, 0215 where change of the voltage V[N1] of the first node N1 due to the leakage current may be compensated by changing the voltage of the control signal stepwise).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have further modified Kim with the teachings of Kim958 to have a voltage to be changed stepwise according to a frequency so as to provide a suitable waveform to maintain luminance using known techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 6, Kim as modified by Noh and Kim958 teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and further teaches wherein, after switching to the second driving frequency, the second data voltage is decreased stepwise from a same voltage as the first data voltage during the second blank period (see Kim figure 5, element re-write, REDATA, figure 6, 415a, REDAT and paragraphs 0128-0130 where rewrite data voltage REDATA is provided during the blank period and Kim958 paragraph 0120, 0193, 0215).
Consider claim 7, Kim as modified by Noh and Kim958 teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and further teaches wherein a period during which the second data voltage is maintained at a same voltage as the first data voltage is equal to a length of the blank period of the at least one frame included in the first period (see Kim figure 5, element re-write, REDATA, figure 6, 415a, REDAT and paragraphs 0128-0130 where rewrite data voltage REDATA is provided during the blank period and Kim958 paragraph 0120, 0193, 0215).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220262295 and Noh et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220036812 in view of Moon et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220157263.
Consider claim 9, Kim as modified by Noh teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and further teaches wherein the control signal includes a first pulse synchronized with a start time of a first frame included in the first period and a second pulse synchronized with a start time of a second frame included in the second period (see Noh paragraph 0093), and
Kim/Noh is silent regarding wherein the frequency calculating unit is configured to count a first period from the input time of the first pulse to the input time of the second pulse during the second frame, and to calculate the first driving frequency of the first frame
In a related field of endeavor, Moon teaches a frame frequency determining unit that counts timing signals so as to determine a frame frequency (see Moon paragraph 0116 where frame frequency determining unit 133 counts timing signals DE, Vsync, and Hsync to determine the frame frequency of currently input data).
On of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have modified Kim/Noh with the teachings of Moon to counts timing signals so as to determine a frame frequency using known techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 10, Kim as modified by Noh and Moon teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the data driver to vary the second data voltage after a time corresponding to the first blank period of the first period (see Noh paragraph 0110 where compensation gain may be set to be highest with respect to a pixel group line (for example, a pixel group line supplied with SCAN(1) in the N.sup.th frame) where a length of the luminance recovery period RTME is shortest and may be set to be lowest with respect to a pixel group line (for example, a pixel group line supplied with SCAN(m) in the N.sup.th frame) where a length of the luminance recovery period RTME is longest).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that there is no disclosure that the value of the rewriting data voltage varies depending on the driving frequency in Kim, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Kim paragraph 0167 discloses “The lookup table may store data about grayscale correction rates depending on the numbers and/or locations of sensing control lines SSL and/or the sensing pixels PXL in consideration of a grayscale variation attributable to a driving frequency or the like”.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in view of the combined teachings of Kim and Noh would have found the claimed subject matter obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shin et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100039416 (method of driving display apparatus), Park et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200074932 (light emitting display device), Son et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210118378 (display device), An et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210287595 (display apparatus), Kim et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220208106 (display device), Huang et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220343871 (display equipment), Kwon et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230086572 (display device), Hong et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230136391 (display device), Jo et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230197000 (display device), Kim, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230206864 (display device), Cho, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240257699 (display device).
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 Dorothy H Harris whose telephone number is (571)270-7539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/Dorothy Harris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights