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 .
DETAILED ACTION
SUMMARY
2. The application filed on October 16, 2025, has been received and made of record. There are initially 1-20 claims in the application of which claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(IDS) submitted was filed along with the mailing date of the application on October 16, 2025. The IDS submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: driving controller(claims 1, 18-20); voltage level determiner(claim 1); voltage compensation level determiner(claims 1-2); voltage comparator(claims 2-5); and offset voltage determiner (claims 2, 6).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph(e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim limitations, “driving controller(claims 1, 18-20); voltage level determiner(claim 1); voltage compensation level determiner(claims 1-2); voltage comparator(claims 2-5); and offset voltage determiner(claims 2, 6)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims 1-6 and 18-20 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 7-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because of their dependency on the rejected base claims respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-2, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PYO et al.(US 2020/0302861 A1)(herein after PYO) in view of CHAE(US 2023/0139147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, PYO teaches a display device(Para-45) comprising:
a display panel(display panel 100, fig.1, Para-45) including pixels(plurality of pixels P, fig.1, Para-46);
a gate driver(scan driver 420, fig.1, Para-46) which outputs a gate signal to the pixels(Para-53);
a data driver(data driver 460, fig.1, Para-52) which outputs a data voltage to the pixels(Para-55);
a gamma reference voltage generator(luminance control unit 200, fig.3, Para-51) which outputs an output gamma reference voltage (gamma voltages GV0’-GV255’) to the data driver(Para-99); and
a driving controller(controller 480, fig.1, Para-52) which controls the gate driver, the data driver, and the gamma reference voltage generator(Para-56),
wherein the driving controller(480) includes:
a voltage level determiner(luminance control unit 200) which determines a target gamma reference voltage corresponding to a target luminance(Para-73: luminance control unit 200 may determine a low-potential driving power voltage ELVSS and gamma voltages GV0 to GV255, based on an ambient illumination intensity LUX and a target brightness TB. Also, the luminance control unit 200 may perform correction on the determined gamma voltages GV0 to GV255, based on an APL of input image data DATA); and
a voltage compensation level determiner(luminance modulator 260, fig.4) which determines an offset voltage to compensate for a deviation between a first output gamma reference voltage (GV0-GV255, Para-99) and the target gamma reference voltage (GV0’-GV255’, Para-102), wherein the first output gamma reference voltage(GV0-GV255) is the output gamma reference voltage prior to compensation thereof(Para-103), and
Nevertheless, PYO is not found to teach expressly the display device, wherein the gamma reference voltage generator outputs a second output gamma reference voltage, which is obtained by applying the offset voltage to the first output gamma reference voltage, as the output gamma reference voltage.
However, CHAE teaches a display device, wherein the gamma reference voltage generator(gamma voltage generator 320, fig.3, Para-98) outputs a second output gamma reference voltage, which is obtained by applying the offset voltage to the first output gamma reference voltage, as the output gamma reference voltage(Para-101: the controller 310 may calculate an offset value based on the luminance control signal LCS. Here, as described with reference to FIG. 1, the controller 310 may use an offset value to calculate gamma voltage information about a target luminance level to generate the gamma voltage control signal GVCS or may use the offset value to calculate a corrected digital input value corresponding to the target luminance level; Para-162).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified PYO with the teaching of CHAE to include the features in order to provide a display device capable of displaying an image at a luminance corresponding to a target luminance level and the gamma voltage generator changes an entire voltage range of the gamma voltages based on the gamma voltage control signal.
Regarding claim 2, PYO as modified by CHAE teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the voltage compensation level determiner includes: a voltage comparator which determines the deviation between the first output gamma reference voltage and the target gamma reference voltage(Para-8, CHAE) (obvious to have comparator to see the difference); and
an offset voltage determiner which determines the offset voltage to compensate for the deviation(Para 9-12, CHAE).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since claim 11 recites identical claim limitations as in claim 1 except respective claim limitations are presented in different format.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since claim 18 recites identical claim limitations as in recited claim 1 except difference of insignificant terminology change in preamble.
12. Claims 3, 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PYO et al.(US 2020/0302861 A1) in view of CHAE(US 2023/0139147 A1) and further in view of HWANG et al.(US 2023/0316979 A1)(herein after HWANG).
Regarding claim 3, PYO as modified by CHAE is not found to teach expressly the display device of claim 2, wherein the voltage comparator includes: a first voltage comparator which determines a first deviation between the first output gamma reference voltage and the target gamma reference voltage based on a first determination criterion; and a second voltage comparator which determines a second deviation between the first output gamma reference voltage and the target gamma reference voltage based on a second determination criterion.
However, HWANG teaches a gamma correction method for a display device, wherein the voltage comparator includes:
a first voltage comparator which determines a first deviation between the first output gamma reference voltage and the target gamma reference voltage based on a first determination criterion(Para-29, 44, 71); and
a second voltage comparator which determines a second deviation between the first output gamma reference voltage and the target gamma reference voltage based on a second determination criterion(Para-78).
It is therefore obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of HWANG into PYO’s disclosure in order to get claimed invention. Such combination is desirable as it provides a display device and its’ driving method that shortens a process time of the gamma correction compared to performing the gamma correction for the low grayscale value by measuring luminance.
Regarding claim 5, PYO as modified by CHAE and HWANG teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the gamma reference voltage generator includes amplifiers and resistors(CHAE teaches both amplifiers and resistor string in fig.5), but fails to teach wherein the second voltage comparator determines the second deviation due to voltage drops caused by the resistors.
However, determining gamma voltage deviation due to resistor string is well-known in the art and it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify PYO with the common knowledge in the art in order to get the claimed invention. The reason for combination is to improve image quality by reducing voltage drop.
Regarding claim 6, PYO as modified by CHAE and HWANG teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the offset voltage determiner includes:
a first offset voltage determiner which determines a first offset voltage based on the first deviation(Para-44, HWANG); and a second offset voltage determiner which determines a second offset voltage based on the second deviation(Para-10, 78, HWANG).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 3, since claim 12 recites the same limitations as in claim 3 except claim limitations are presented in different format.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 6, since claim 13 recites the same limitations as in claim 6 except claim limitations are presented in different format.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 3, since claim 19 recites the same limitations partially as in claim 3 except claim limitations are presented in different format.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 6, since claim 20 recites the same limitations as in claim 6 except different preamble.
13. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PYO et al.(US 2020/0302861 A1),CHAE(US 2023/0139147 A1), HWANG et al.(US 2023/0316979 A1)and further in view of KIM et al.(US 2023/ 0063319 A1)(herein after KIM).
Regarding claim 4, PYO as modified by CHAE and HWANG teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the gamma reference voltage generator includes amplifiers and resistors(CHAE teaches both amplifiers and resistor string in fig.5), but fails to teach wherein the first voltage comparator determines the first deviation due to changes in characteristics of the amplifiers.
However, KIM teaches a display device, wherein the gamma reference voltage generator includes amplifiers(AMPL, AMPH, fig.3, Para-42) and resistors(figs.3-4, Para-39, 47-48), and
wherein the first voltage comparator determines the first deviation due to changes in characteristics of the amplifiers (Para-62/63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified PYO further with the teaching of KIM to include the features in order to improve an image quality of a display device including the gamma amplifier GA by compensating for an offset voltage.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7: None of the prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, “the display device of claim 6, wherein when the first output gamma reference voltage is greater than the target gamma reference voltage, the first offset voltage is less than the target gamma reference voltage, and wherein when the first output gamma reference voltage is less than the target gamma reference voltage, the first offset voltage is greater than the target gamma reference voltage.
Claims 8-10 are also objected to because of their dependency on the objected base claims respectively.
16. Claims 14-17 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.
17. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14: None of the prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, “the method of claim 13, wherein in the determining the first offset voltage based on the first deviation, when the first output gamma reference voltage is greater than the target gamma reference voltage, the first offset voltage is less than the target gamma reference voltage, and wherein in the determining the first offset voltage based on the first deviation, when the first output gamma reference voltage is less than the target gamma reference voltage, the first offset voltage is greater than the target gamma reference voltage”.
Claims 15-17 are also objected to because of their dependency on the objected base claims respectively.
Examiner Note
18. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights