DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10, 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuyama (US Patent/PGPub. No. 6069676) in view of Xin et al. (US Patent/PGPub. No. 20240078961).
Regarding Claim 1, (Currently Amended)
Yuyama teaches
a display system (Col. 3, Ln. 20-26, FIG. 1, i.e. sequential color display device), comprising:
a display (Col. 3, Ln. 20-26, FIG. 1, i.e. LED box 3) comprising an emitter (Col. 3, Ln. 20-26, FIG. 1, i.e. red, green and blue color LEDs 2a, 2b and 2c) for emitting light (Col. 3, Ln. 20-26, FIG. 1, i.e. three color light sources); and
a display controller (Col. 3, Ln. 34-45, FIG. 1, i.e. light quantity controlling unit 11) configured to apply an amount of color correction (Col. 3, Ln. 34-45, FIG. 1, i.e. white balance … light quantity controlling voltage signal) to the display to adjust respective amounts of light (Col. 4, Ln. 1-5, FIG. 2, i.e. changing quantity of color light emitted from each LED) of two or more wavelengths (Col. 3, Ln. 55-59, FIG. 1, i.e. red, green and blue LEDs 2a, 2b and 2c (Please note that red, green, and blue would emit different wavelengths corresponding to their colors)) emitted by the display (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
However, Yuyama does not explicitly teach
the amount of color correction applied to the emitter being determined by a color correction scaling factor that decreases with increased intensity of the light emitted by the emitter.
In the same field of endeavor, Xin et al. teach
the amount of color correction ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. luminance values) applied to the emitter ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. pixel) being determined by a color correction scaling factor ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. brightness scaling factor) that decreases ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. scale down) with increased intensity of the light ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. peak brightness level. When average pixel luminance values are high; [0036], FIG. 26, i.e. brightness scaling factor may decrease as an average pixel luminance value increases) emitted by the emitter (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Yuyama teaching of a display comprising plurality of LEDs capable of adjusting brightness of two or more wavelengths with Xin et al. teaching of a display comprising plurality of LEDs capable of correcting brightness utilizing scaling factor that is inversely proportional to brightness to effectively reduce power consumption yet correctly maintain brightness for content according to the environment (Xin et al.’s [0147]).
Regarding Claim 2, (Original)
the display system of claim 1, wherein:
Yuyama teaches
applying the color correction to the display comprises increasing (i.e. please see above citation(s)) a magnitude (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 1, i.e. control circuit compares the level of the input signal with a reference voltage) of an electrical stimulus applied to (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 1, i.e. increasing the current flowing through the corresponding LED) the emitter (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 8, (Original) the display system of claim 1, wherein:
Yuyama teaches
the display controller determines the amount of color correction to be applied to the emitter (i.e. please see above citation(s)) based on image data (Col. 1, Ln. 34-45, FIG. 1, i.e. display information; Col. 3, Ln. 20-25, FIG. 1, i.e. red, green and blue color LEDs 2a, 2b and 2c)) received by the display controller (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 9, (Original)
the display system of claim 8, wherein:
Xin et al. teach
the display controller ([0111], FIG. 23, i.e. control circuitry 412) further determines the amount of color correction to be applied ([0111], FIG. 23, i.e. determining pixel luminance levels) to the emitter ([0118], FIG. 23, i.e. array 428 of pixels 436) based on a brightness configuration setting ([0111], FIG. 23, i.e. on ambient light conditions, user-adjusted display brightness settings) of the display system ([0110], FIG. 23, i.e. electronic device 410).
Regarding Claim 10, (Original)
the display system of claim 9, wherein:
Xin et al. teach
the brightness configuration setting (i.e. please see above citation(s)) is determined at least in part based on an ambient light level in an environment ([0111], FIG. 23, i.e. on ambient light conditions) of the display (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 14, (Currently Amended)
Yuyama teaches
a method (Col. 6, Ln. 8-10, FIG. 1, i.e. mounting method), comprising:
determining an amount of color correction (Col. 3, Ln. 34-45, FIG. 1, i.e. white balance … light quantity controlling voltage signal) to apply to a display to adjust respective amounts of light (Col. 4, Ln. 1-5, FIG. 2, i.e. changing quantity of color light emitted from each LED) of two or more wavelengths (Col. 3, Ln. 55-59, FIG. 1, i.e. red, green and blue LEDs 2a, 2b and 2c (Please note that red, green, and blue would emit different wavelengths corresponding to their colors)) emitted by the display (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
However, Yuyama does not explicitly teach
the amount of color correction being determined by a color correction scaling factor that decreases with increased intensity of the light emitted by an emitter of the display; and
applying the amount of color correction to the display using the color correction scaling factor.
In the same field of endeavor, Xin et al. teach
the amount of color correction ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. luminance values) being determined by a color correction scaling factor ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. brightness scaling factor) that decreases ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. scale down) with increased intensity of the light ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. peak brightness level. When average pixel luminance values are high; [0036], FIG. 26, i.e. brightness scaling factor may decrease as an average pixel luminance value increases) emitted by an emitter ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. pixel) of the display ([0051], FIG. 26, i.e. electronic display 12); and
applying the amount of color correction ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. pixel luminance values are low) to the display using the color correction scaling factor ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. brightness scaling factor of 1 is applied).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Yuyama teaching method of adjusting LEDs brightness of two or more wavelengths with Xin et al. teaching method of adjusting LEDs brightness utilizing scaling factor that is inversely proportional to brightness to effectively reduce power consumption yet correctly maintain brightness for content according to the environment (Xin et al.’s [0147]).
Regarding Claim 18, (Original)
the method of claim 14, wherein:
Yuyama teaches
applying the color correction to the display comprises increasing (i.e. please see above citation(s)) a magnitude (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 1, i.e. control circuit compares the level of the input signal with a reference voltage) of an electrical stimulus applied to (Col. 3, Ln. 45-54, FIG. 1, i.e. increasing the current flowing through the corresponding LED) the emitter (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
Regarding Claim 20, (Currently Amended)
Yuyama teaches
cause the display system (Col. 3, Ln. 20-26, FIG. 1, i.e. sequential color display device) to perform operations comprising:
determining an amount of color correction (Col. 3, Ln. 34-45, FIG. 1, i.e. white balance … light quantity controlling voltage signal) to apply to a display to adjust respective amounts of light (Col. 4, Ln. 1-5, FIG. 2, i.e. changing quantity of color light emitted from each LED) of two or more wavelengths (Col. 3, Ln. 55-59, FIG. 1, i.e. red, green and blue LEDs 2a, 2b and 2c (Please note that red, green, and blue would emit different wavelengths corresponding to their colors)) emitted by the display (i.e. please see above citation(s)).
However, Yuyama does not explicitly teach
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by at least one processor of a display system,
the amount of color correction being determined by a color correction scaling factor that decreases with increased intensity of the light emitted by an emitter of the display; and
applying the amount of color correction to the display using the color correction scaling factor.
In the same field of endeavor, Xin et al. teach
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0052], FIG. 1, i.e. non-transitory computer-readable medium), the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions ([0052], FIG. 1, i.e. storing instructions) that when executed by at least one processor ([0052], FIG. 1, i.e. processor core complex 18) of a display system ([0052], FIG. 1, i.e. electronic display 12),
the amount of color correction ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. luminance values) being determined by a color correction scaling factor ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. brightness scaling factor) that decreases ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. scale down) with increased intensity of the light ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. peak brightness level. When average pixel luminance values are high; [0036], FIG. 26, i.e. brightness scaling factor may decrease as an average pixel luminance value increases) emitted by an emitter of the display (i.e. please see above citation(s)); and
applying the amount of color correction ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. pixel luminance values are low) to the display using the color correction scaling factor ([0147], FIG. 26, i.e. brightness scaling factor of 1 is applied).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Yuyama teaching non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of adjusting LEDs brightness of two or more wavelengths with Xin et al. teaching non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of adjusting LEDs brightness utilizing scaling factor that is inversely proportional to brightness to effectively reduce power consumption yet correctly maintain brightness for content according to the environment (Xin et al.’s [0147]).
3. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuyama (US Patent/PGPub. No. 6069676) and Xin et al. (US Patent/PGPub. No. 20240078961) in view of Olchovik (US Patent/PGPub. No. 20230120576).
Regarding Claim 13, (Original)
Yuyama and Xin et al. teach the display system of claim 1.
However, Yuyama and Xin et al. do not explicitly teach
wherein:
the amount of color correction applied to the display is based on a calibration process performed during manufacturing of the display.
In the same field of endeavor, Olchovik teaches
wherein:
the amount of color correction ([0007], FIG. 1, i.e. pixel-level demura) applied to the display ([0007], FIG. 1, i.e. OLED display) is based on a calibration process performed during manufacturing of the display ([0007], FIG. 1, i.e. correction value is applied during OLED display manufacture).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention’s effective date was filed to combine Yuyama teaching of display comprising color corrections of plurality of LEDs with Olchovik teaching of display comprising color corrections at manufacturer to effectively increase luminance uniformity “out-of-the-box” (Olchovik’s [0007]).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
5. Applicants’ Response to the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/16/2026, has been entered and made of record. Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 is/are amended. Thus, Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim(s) 3-7, 11-12, 15-17, and 19 is/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.
7. The reasons for allowance have been set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/16/2026.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 VINH TANG LAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Nitin K Patel can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/VINH T LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights