`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`
`12/000,293
`
`12/11/2007
`
`Mitsuhide Miyamoto
`
`HITA-1049
`
`2699
`
`Tuan
`
`Ma
`
`meee
`
`Juan Carlos A. Marquez a
`
`c/o Stites & Harbison PLLC
`1199 North Fairfax Street
`Suite 900
`Alexandria, VA 22314-1437
`
`PATEL, SANIIV D
`
`2629
`
`
`
` NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/18/2012
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`iplaw @stites.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`12/000,293
`Examiner
`SANJIV D. PATEL
`
`MIYAMOTOETAL.
`Art Unit
`2629
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY(30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)L] Responsive to communication(s) filed on
`2a)X] This action is FINAL.
`2b)L] This action is non-final.
`3)L] An election was made bythe applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporatedinto this action.
`4)_] Sincethis application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)X] Claim(s) 1,2 and 4-10 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)L] Claim(s) ___ is/are allowed.
`7) Claim(s) 1,2,4-10 is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s) ___is/are objectedto.
`9)L] Claim(s)___ are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[] The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)[_] accepted or b)[_] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`12) The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`13)[] Acknowledgmentis made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)L] All
`)LJ Some * c)L] None of:
`1..] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.L] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.L] Copiesof the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`1) Xx Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) [_] Notice of Draftsperson’s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) X] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 6/6/12.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) CT] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __
`5) L] Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) Cc Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 03-11)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20120705
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1 and 5 have been amended as per Applicant’s amendment filed on June
`
`6, 2012. Claims 3 and 11-14 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are pending.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as
`
`being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
`
`which applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 5, the term “a property value” is used twice, within each
`
`of claims 1 and 5 respectively, underdifferent contexts where one instanceis with
`
`reference to "a subject pixel,” and anotherinstance is with reference to "a plurality of
`
`pixels." As a result, the claim is unclear.
`
`Examinerrespectfully recommendsthat claims 1 and 5 be amended to
`
`designate, for example, "a first property value” to refer to a plurality of pixels, and "a
`
`second property value" to refer to a subject pixel.
`
`Regarding claim 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, these claims recites the limitation "the
`
`anotherpixel." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 ofthis title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable overin view of Kimura (US 2005/0179628 A1, Published August 18, 2005)
`
`in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2003/0063053 A1, Published April 4, 2003) and Kabeet
`
`al. (JP 2002-278513-A, Published September 27, 2002).
`
`Asto claim 1, Kimura discloses a display unit including a screen on which plural
`
`pixels each having an OLED device are arranged in a matrix; and
`
`a detection unit which measures a property value of the OLED deviceof the
`
`plural pixels at a predetermined time interval to reflect a change in the property value of
`
`the OLED devicein an imagesignal (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; | [0048] discloses “...the
`
`ammeter can measure a current flowing in a specific pixel.”),
`
`While Kimura does disclose compensation for age related OLED degradation
`
`(Abstract; ¥ [0159]; Fig. 18), Kimura doesnotexplicitly disclose that the change in the
`
`property value of the OLED device a subject pixel is obtained by comparing to the
`
`property value of the OLED deviceof the subject pixel with a property value derived
`
`from a statistical processing of the property value of the OLED device ofthe plural
`
`pixels which exists on a same scanning line.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 4
`
`However, Yamazakiet al. does disclose that the change in the property value of
`
`the OLED device a subject pixel is obtained by comparing to the property value of the
`
`OLED deviceof the subject pixel which exists on a same scanning line (Figs. 1 and 5;
`
`[0078] discloses that a pixel with the greatest deterioration, i.e. pixel 203, is used as the
`
`referencepixel.
`
`In such a case, it follows that pixels 201 and 202 are on the same
`
`scanning line with pixel 203. Moreover, {| [0078] further discloses that “...gradation
`
`levels are compared betweenthe reference pixel and anotherpixel [(i.e. pixel 201 or
`
`202)]; a difference between the gradation levels of these pixels is calculated; and the
`
`image signal is so corrected as to compensatefor the gradation level difference.”; J
`
`[0085] discloses that the gradation Is compensated by adjusting the current to a pixel).
`
`Kimura discloses a base OLED display device upon whichthe claimed invention
`
`is an improvement. Yamazaki et al. discloses a comparable OLED display device which
`
`has been improvedin the same wayas the claimed invention. Hence, it would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add
`
`the teachings of Yamazakiet al. to that of Kimura for the predictable result of minimizing
`
`luminance variations among the pixels (Yamazakiet al. at § [0076)).
`
`The combination Kimura and Yamazakiet al. does not disclose that the property
`
`value of the plurality of pixels is derived from a statistical processing of the property
`
`value of the OLED deviceof the plural pixels. However, Kabe et al. does disclose that
`
`that the property value of the plurality of pixels is derived from a statistical processing of
`
`the property value of the OLED deviceof the plural pixels ({ [0010]-[0011], in particular,
`
`discloses computing an average — or statistical mean — of brightness of a plurality of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 5
`
`pixels comprising an image such that the average is subsequently used to generate
`
`correction information to compensate individual OLEDs suchthat their emitted
`
`brightness is uniform; Figs. 6-11 & ¥ [0028]-[0050] also describe, for example, how
`
`current in three OLED pixels on the same line are measured, averaged- statistically
`
`processed, then used to correct a subject OLED pixel on the same line).
`
`The combination of Kimura and Yamazaki et al. discloses a base OLED display
`
`device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Kabeet al. discloses a
`
`comparable OLED display device which has been improved in the same wayas the
`
`claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention to add the teachings of Kabeetal. to that of Kimura for
`
`the predictable result of minimizing luminance variations among the pixels (Kabeetal.
`
`at § [0010]-[0011)).
`
`Asto claim 2, the combination of Kimura ,Yamazaki et al., and Kabeetal.
`
`disclose the display unit according to claim 1. Yamazakiet al further discloses that
`
`anotherpixel is adjacent to the subject pixel (Fig. 5; ¥ [0078]) (See also Kabeetal. at
`
`Fig. 7 and § [0037] which discloses correcting OLED (1, 2) which is adjacentto (1, 1)
`
`and (1, 3) on the same scanning line).
`
`Asto claim 4, the combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeetal.
`
`discloses the display unit according to claim 1. Kimura further discloses a line memory
`
`for storing the property value of the OLED deviceof the pixel on the scanning line (Fig.
`
`1, storage media 211).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 6
`
`Asto claim 5, Kimura discloses a display unit including a screen on which plural
`
`pixels each having an OLED device are arranged in a matrix, which measures an
`
`electrical of signal property value of the OLED device at a predetermined time interval to
`
`reflect a change in the property value of the OLED device in an image signal (Abstract;
`
`Figs. 1-2; {| [0048] discloses “...the ammeter can measure a current flowing in a specific
`
`pixel.”),
`
`While Kimura does disclose compensation for age related OLED degradation
`
`(Abstract; ¥ [0159]; Fig. 18), Kimura does not disclose the change in the property value
`
`of the OLED device of a subject pixel is obtained by comparing the property value of the
`
`OLED deviceof the subject pixel with a property value derived fromastatistical
`
`processing of the property value of the OLED deviceof the plural pixels which exist on
`
`the same line as the subject pixel, and that the property value of the OLED deviceof the
`
`anotherpixel is in a predetermined range of the property value of the OLED device.
`
`However, Yamazakiet al. does disclose that the change in the property value of
`
`the OLED device of a subject pixel is obtained by comparing the property value of the
`
`OLED deviceof the subject pixel and that of an anotherpixel in an image display area,
`
`and that the property value of the OLED device of the anotherpixelis in a
`
`predetermined range of the property value of the OLED device (Figs. 1 and 5; § [0078]
`
`discloses that a pixel with the greatest deterioration, i.e. pixel 203, is used as the
`
`reference pixel.
`
`It is inherent that the pixel with the greatest deterioration is somewhere
`
`in the display area, and hence, in a predetermined range. Moreover, { [0078] further
`
`discloses that “...gradation levels are compared between the referencepixel and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 7
`
`anotherpixel [(i.e. pixel 201 or 202)]; a difference between the gradation levels of these
`
`pixels is calculated; and the image signal is so corrected as to compensatefor the
`
`gradation level difference.”; {| [0085] discloses that the gradation Is compensated by
`
`adjusting the current to a pixel)
`
`Kimura discloses a base OLED display device upon which the claimed invention
`
`is an improvement. Yamazaki et al. discloses a comparable OLED display device which
`
`has been improvedin the same wayas the claimed invention. Hence, it would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add
`
`the teachings of Yamazaki et al. to that of Kimura for the predictable result of minimizing
`
`luminance variations among the pixels (Yamazakiet al. at § [0076)).
`
`The combination Kimura and Yamazaki et al. does not disclose that the property
`
`value of the plurality of pixels is derived from a statistical processing of the property
`
`value of the OLED deviceof the plural pixels which exist on the same scanning line.
`
`However, Kabeet al. does disclose that that the property value of the plurality of pixels
`
`is derived fromastatistical processing of the property value of the OLED deviceof the
`
`plural pixels which exist on the same scanning line (4 [0010]-[0011], in particular,
`
`discloses computing an average — or statistical mean — of brightness of a plurality of
`
`pixels comprising an image such that the average is subsequently used to generate
`
`correction information to compensate individual OLEDs suchthat their emitted
`
`brightness is uniform; Figs. 6-11 & ¥ [0028]-[0050] also describe, for example, how
`
`current in three OLED pixels on the same line are measured, averaged- statistically
`
`processed, then used to correct a subject OLED pixel on the same line).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 8
`
`The combination of Kimura and Yamazaki et al. discloses a base OLED display
`
`device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Kabeet al. discloses a
`
`comparable OLED display device which has been improved in the same wayas the
`
`claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention to add the teachings of Kabeetal. to that of Kimura for
`
`the predictable result of minimizing luminance variations among the pixels (Kabeetal.
`
`at § [0010]-[0011)).
`
`Asto claim 6, the combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeetal.
`
`disclose the display unit according to claim 5. Yamazakiet al. further discloses that the
`
`anotherpixel and the subject pixel exist on a same scanning line (Fig. 5, reference pixel
`
`203 is on the same line as pixels 201 and 202; ¢ [0078]) (See also Kabeetal. at Fig. 7
`
`and 4 [0037] which discloses correcting OLED (1, 2) which is adjacentto (1, 1) and (1,
`
`3) on the same scanning line).
`
`Asto claim 8, the combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeetal.
`
`discloses the display unit according to claim 5. Yamazaki et al further discloses that the
`
`anotherpixel exists adjacent to the subject pixel, both of which exist on a same
`
`scanning line (Figs. 1 and 5; ¢ [0078] discloses that a pixel with the greatest
`
`deterioration, i.e. pixel 203, is used as the referencepixel.
`
`In such a case, it follows that
`
`pixels 201 and 202 are on the same scanning line with pixel 203.) (See also Kabeetal.
`
`at Fig. 7 and ¥ [0037] which discloses correcting OLED (1, 2) which is adjacentto (1, 1)
`
`and (1, 3) on the same scanning line).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 9
`
`Asto claim 10, the combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeetal.
`
`disclose the display unit according to claim 5. Yamazakiet al. further disclosesaline
`
`memory for storing the property of the OLED device of the pixel on the scanning line
`
`(Fig. 1, storage media 211).
`
`4.
`
`Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Kimura (US 2005/0179628 A1, Published August 18, 2005 in view of Yamazakietal.
`
`(US 2003/0063053 A1, Published April 4, 2003) and Kabeet al. (JP 2002-278513-A,
`
`Published September 27, 2002) as applied to claim 5 above, and furtherin view of Cok
`
`et al. (US 2004/0070558 A1, Published April 15, 2004).
`
`Asto claim 7, the combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeetal.
`
`disclose the display unit according to claim 5. Yamazaki et al. further discloses that the
`
`property value of the OLED deviceof the anotherpixel is represented by the voltage
`
`betweenterminals of the OLED device for receiving a specific current application within
`
`a predetermined range (Figs. 1 and 5; § [0078] discloses that a pixel with the greatest
`
`deterioration, i.e. pixel 203, is used as the reference pixel.
`
`It is inherent that the pixel
`
`with the greatest deterioration is somewherein the display area, and hence, ina
`
`predetermined range.).
`
`The combination does not explicitly disclose that the property value of the OLED
`
`device of the subject pixel is represented by a voltage betweenterminals of the OLED
`
`device, wherein the property value of the OLED device of the anotherpixelis
`
`represented by a voltage between terminals of the OLED device.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 10
`
`However, Cok et al. does disclose that the property value of the OLED deviceof
`
`the subject pixel is represented by a voltage betweenterminals of the OLED device (
`
`[0029] discloses that problems with aging materials in an OLED can be detected by
`
`measuring the voltage across the OLED; {[0030]-[0030], and [0049]), wherein the
`
`property value of the OLED deviceof the anotherpixel is represented by a voltage
`
`betweenterminals of the OLED device ( [0031)).
`
`The combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeet al. discloses a base
`
`OLED display device upon whichthe claimed invention is an improvement. Coketal.
`
`discloses a comparable OLED display device which has been improved in the same
`
`wayas the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the teachings of Coket al. to that
`
`of the combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeetal. for the predictable result
`
`of characterizing changes that occur over a very short period of time in orderto
`
`compensatefor their effects (Cok et al. at { [0005]).
`
`Asto claim 9, the combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeetal.
`
`discloses the display unit according to claim 5. Yamazaki et al. further discloses that
`
`the property of the OLED deviceof the subject pixel is compared with that of a pixel
`
`adjacent to the another pixel (Fig 5; § [0078]). The combination does not disclose the
`
`condition of when the property of the OLED device of the anotherpixel is not in the
`
`predetermined range of the property of the OLED device.
`
`However, Cok et al. does disclose the condition of when the property of the
`
`OLED device of the anotherpixel is not in the predetermined range of the property of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 11
`
`the OLED device (Figs. 1-2, reference pixel 14 is not in predetermined range of display
`
`12).
`
`The combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeet al. discloses a base
`
`OLED display device upon whichthe claimed invention is an improvement. Coketal.
`
`discloses a comparable OLED display device which has been improved in the same
`
`wayas the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the teachings of Cok etal. to that
`
`of the combination of Kimura, Yamazaki et al., and Kabeetal. for the predictable result
`
`of characterizing changes that occur over a very short period of time in orderto
`
`compensatefor their effects (Cok et al. at { [0005)).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`5.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-10 have been
`
`considered but they are believed to be addressed above, and therefore, are mootin
`
`view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`6.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presentedin
`
`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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 12
`
`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 eventafirst replyis 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-MONTHshortenedstatutory period, then the
`
`shortenedstatutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuantto 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 dateofthis final action.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to SANJIV D. PATEL whosetelephone numberis
`
`(571)270-5731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondayto Friday, 8:30AM
`
`to 5PM.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Alexander Eisen can be reached on 571-272-7687. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization wherethis application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`Art Unit: 2629
`
`Page 13
`
`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 accessto 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 automatedinformation
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/SANJIV D PATEL/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2629
`
`07/06/2012
`
`/Alexander Eisen/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2629
`
`