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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 25 June 2026, in which:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11, 17 and 19 are amended.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 15-18 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 prior art of record fails to teach or suggest dynamically scaling the specific first weight (w1) and second weight (w2) inversely to one another as cumulative usage time increases, as well as the specific mathematical formulas recited therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot or not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that the Examiner improperly dissected the claims in violation of MPEP 2103(1)(C) by evaluating the elements of Hwang, An, and Nathan in isolation. This argument is respectfully traversed. The Examiner did not evaluate the elements in isolation to negate patentability, but rather properly applied the Graham v. John Deere obviousness framework. The Office Action clearly articulated how Hwang provides the base degradation compensation architecture, while An provides the specific dynamic range (V_{gs}) operating mechanics, and Nathan provides the extraction of dynamic pixel parameters. The rejection explicitly reasoned that a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine these teachings to realize a high-resolution display with stable grayscale outputs over its lifespan. Combining teachings from multiple references to address different limitations of a claim is the bedrock of an obviousness analysis, not improper dissection.
Applicant argues that An and Nathan individually do not disclose the complete limitations of the claim, for example, arguing An only describes expanding the driving range, and Nathan only describes extracting threshold shifts without determining an output based on the compensation value and gain). This argument is respectfully traversed. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references (See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The rejection relies on the combined teachings of Hwang, An, and Nathan as a whole.
Applicant amended claims 1, 11, and 19 to require determining an output grayscale value based on a "product of" the compensation value and compensation gain, arguing this mathematical relationship is not found in the cited art. This argument is respectfully traversed. The amendment merely recites the inherent mathematical operation required to apply a gain. First, the combination relies on An for teaching the determination of a compensation gain. Gain is universally defined as a multiplicative scaling factor. Therefore, adjusting a compensation value based on a gain inherently and necessarily requires calculating the product of the value and the gain. Nathan explicitly teaches extracting and compensating for both static effects (e.g., threshold voltage shifts) and dynamic effects (Nathan: Paras [0106], [0134]). It is particularly well-known in the art of display driving, and fundamental to the dynamic aging effects compensation taught by Nathan, that while threshold voltage shifts are typically corrected via an additive offset, dynamic aging effects are corrected via a multiplicative scaling factor (a gain). Therefore, applying the compensation gain as a "product" of the compensation value to adjust the output grayscale is fully disclosed and rendered obvious by Nathan's mobility compensation teachings. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The rejections of Claims 5-6, 9-10, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments, which have resolved the antecedent basis and mathematical index ambiguities.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 11-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (U.S. 2023/0128265, hereinafter “Hwang”) in view of An et al. (U.S. 2013/0207117, hereinafter "An") and Nathan et al. (U.S. 2013/0027381, hereinafter "Nathan").
With respect to Claim 1, Hwang teaches a display device, comprising:
a pixel comprising a light emitting element (Hwang: Abstract, display panel with pixels and OLEDs); and
a degradation compensator configured to determine a compensation value for an input grayscale value of the pixel, based on the input grayscale value and at least one of a cumulative usage time or a cumulative degradation value of the light emitting element (Hwang: Abstract, degradation compensator utilizing degradation data to formulate a compensation amount).
Hwang fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the degradation compensator is configured to determine a compensation gain, based on a dynamic range of a driving transistor of the pixel and at least one of the cumulative usage time or the cumulative degradation value, and
wherein the degradation compensator is configured to determine an output grayscale value of the pixel, based on the compensation value and the compensation gain.
However, An discloses:
wherein the degradation compensator is configured to determine a compensation gain, based on a dynamic range of a driving transistor of the pixel (An: Para [0121] – [0126], the driving (DR) range of the gate voltage Vgs applied to the gate electrode of the drive thin film transistor is expanded and utilized to ensure the light emitted by the OLED has sufficient grayscale).
And Nathan discloses:
wherein the degradation compensator is configured to determine an output grayscale value of the pixel, based on a product of compensation value and the compensation gain derived from dynamic effects and cumulative degradation values (Nathan: Para [0106], [0129], [0134], extracting the threshold voltage shift and dynamic effects of the pixel current based on gate-source voltages to apply accurate compensation. As is well known in the art, compensating for dynamic effects/mobility inherently utilizes a multiplicative scaling factor applied to a baseline value to adjust pixel current.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Hwang, to incorporate the determination of a compensation gain based on the dynamic (driving) range of the driving transistor as taught by An, and dynamically adjusting it based on cumulative degradation as taught by Nathan, in order to realize a high-resolution display with stable grayscale outputs over its operational lifespan and minimize degradation errors.
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of Hwang as modified by An and Nathan teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the dynamic range corresponds to a difference between a gate-source voltage of the driving transistor to flow a driving current corresponding to a minimum grayscale value and a gate-source voltage of the driving transistor to flow a driving current corresponding to a maximum grayscale value (An: Para [0121] – [0126], teaching that the driving (DR) range corresponds to the range of the gate voltage (Vgs) bounded by the states where light emitted is expressed as black, i.e., minimum grayscale, and white, i.e., maximum grayscale).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Hwang and Nathan, to explicitly define the dynamic range using the gate-source voltage boundaries for minimum and maximum grayscales, as taught by An, in order to properly configure the driving range to control a sufficient grayscale output.
With respect to Claims 11 and 12, these claims are directed to a method of driving a display device comprising procedural steps that correspond substantially to the structural limitations of the apparatus set forth in claims 1 and 2. Therefore, Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of An and Nathan for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1 and 10.
With respect to Claims 19 and 20, these claims are directed to an electronic device comprising the display device of claims 1 and 2, further comprising a processor configured to provide an image signal. Hwang teaches the display device integrated into a broader consumer electronic device requiring an upstream processor to provide the image signal (Hwang: Abstract). Therefore, Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of An and Nathan for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1 and 2.
Claims 3-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of An and Nathan, as applied to claims 1-2, 7-10, and further in view of Cok et al. (U.S. 6,867,549, hereinafter "Cok").
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of Hwang as modified by An and Nathan teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Hwang, An, and Nathan fail to expressly disclose:
wherein the degradation compensator is configured to determine the compensation gain based on... at least one of an emission efficiency or an emission surface area of the light emitting element.
However, Cok discloses:
wherein the degradation compensator is configured to determine the compensation gain based on physical parameters such as an emission efficiency or an emission surface area of the light emitting element (Cok: Col. 1, lines 50-62, Col. 4, lines 8-26 resizing OLED pixels in accordance with emission efficiency to balance differing pixel aging rates).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Hwang, An, and Nathan, to incorporate physical parameters such as emission efficiency into the compensation gain determination, as taught by Cok, in order to accurately balance the differential aging rates of various color sub-pixels (Cok: Col. 2, lines 15-16).
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of Hwang as modified by An, Nathan, and Cok teaches the apparatus of claim 3,
wherein the degradation compensator is configured to determine the compensation gain to be smaller as the dynamic range increases (An: Para [0121] – [0126], a higher dynamic range allows for a larger signal swing, meaning the brightness can be adjusted over a larger range which inherently requires a less aggressive or smaller compensation gain adjustment).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus to apply a smaller gain to larger dynamic ranges, as taught by An, in order to effectively utilize the expanded signal swing without over-saturating the pixel.
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of Hwang as modified by An, Nathan, and Cok teaches the apparatus of claim 4,
wherein the degradation compensator is configured to determine the compensation gain to be smaller as the emission efficiency increases (Cok: Col. 1, lines 50-62, Col. 4, lines 8-26, adjusting parameters based on emission efficiency prevents less efficient pixels from failing earlier, thereby demonstrating highly efficient pixels require less aggressive compensation).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus to scale the gain inversely to emission efficiency, as taught by Cok, in order to prevent over-compensation in highly efficient sub-pixels and maximize display usability over time.
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of Hwang as modified by An, Nathan, and Cok teaches the apparatus of claim 5,
wherein the degradation compensator is configured to determine the compensation gain to be smaller as the emission surface area increases (Cok: Col. 1, lines 50-62, Col. 4, lines 8-26, resizing pixels based on efficiency demonstrates that larger surface areas disperse current density and therefore require less corrective gain to prevent differential aging).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus to scale the gain inversely to emission surface area, as taught by Cok, in order to maintain a uniform brightness compensation across diverse sub-pixel geometries.
With respect to Claims 13-14, these claims are directed to a method of driving a display device comprising procedural steps that correspond substantially to the structural limitations of the apparatus set forth in claims 3-6. Therefore, Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of An, Nathan, and Cok for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 3-6.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights