`
`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
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/000,293
`
`12/11/2007
`
`Mitsuhide Miyamoto
`
`04/09/2014
`7590
`38327
`MORRISMANNINGWARTIN LLP
`
`IP Department
`1401 Eye Street, NW
`smog
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`HITA—1049
`(28014—96587)
`
`2699
`
`PATEL, SANJIV D
`
`2697
`
`
`
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`NW
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/09/2014
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/0r 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):
`lniu @ mmmlaw.com
`
`mmmipdocket @ system.foundationip.com
`ndesanti @ mmmlaw.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 12/000,293 MIYAMOTO ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2697SANJIV D. PATEL first“
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`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).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 6 March 2014.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:| This action is non-final.
`2a)IZ| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)|XI Claim(s) 14 5 73nd 10 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6 III Claim s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`1 4 5 7 and 10 is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atents/init events"
`h/index.‘s
`
`
`
`
`
`or send an inquiry to PPI-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:I The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I 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).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)I:I All
`1.|:| Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:| Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in 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)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PT0_413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`—
`4) I:I Other'
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date .
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20140323
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1 and 5 have been amended as per Applicant’s amendment filed on
`
`March 6, 2014. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11-14 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 4,
`
`5, 7, and 10 remain pending.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the
`(a)
`invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise,
`and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it
`is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode
`contemplated by the inventor orjoint inventor of carrying out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the
`manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the
`inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1, 5, and the claims depending therefrom are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
`
`written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not
`
`described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in
`
`the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the
`
`time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`As to claims 1 and 5, the newly claimed limitation recited as “a statistical
`
`processing at the predetermined time interval of the first property value of the OLED
`
`device of each of the plural pixels” subtends new subject matter not present in
`
`Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. One of the aspects implicated by this newly
`
`added claim language is that a statistical processing occurs concurrently with every
`
`measurement of a first property. Examiner is unable to locate such a disclosure or
`
`teaching anywhere in Applicant's specification or drawings.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth 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 of this 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 obvious at 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.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1
`
`is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kondakov et al. (US
`
`7,079,091 B2, Patented July 18, 2006) in view of Winters (US 2008/0085652 A1, Filed
`
`October 10, 2006), Noh (US 2008/0079826 A1, Filed October 2, 2006), and Shen (US
`
`6,414,661 B1, Patented July 2, 2002).
`
`As to claim 1, Kondakov et al. discloses a display unit, including:
`
`a screen on which plural pixels each having an OLED device are arranged in a
`
`matrix (Abstract; col. 6, ll. 59); and
`
`a detection unit which measures a first property value of the OLED device (Fig.
`
`11, measurement circuit/ADC 12; col. 5, II. 30-34) of each of the plural pixels (col. 6, ll.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`46-48 discloses that measurement and calculation for “every pixel in the array of OLED
`
`pixels”) at a predetermined time interval to reflect a change in the first property value of
`
`the OLED device in an image signal (col. 5, ll. 63 to col. 6, ll. 6 discloses that
`
`measurement and calculation occurs at predetermined intervals without interfering with
`
`an image perceived by a user. A "signal representative of the accumulated charge" is
`
`analogous to a first property),
`
`wherein the change in the first property value of the OLED device of a subject
`
`pixel is obtained by comparing to the first property value of the OLED device of the
`
`subject pixel with a second property value derived from a statistical processing at the
`
`predetermined time interval of the first property value of the OLED device of each of the
`
`plural pixels (col. 4, II. 34-47, “adjusting driving current using measured transition
`
`voltage and predetermined parameters (slope and intercept) of a linear correlation
`
`between transition voltage and luminance" implicates statistical processing of the
`
`first property value)‘2 which exist on a same scanning line as the subject pixel (col. 6, II.
`
`46-52).
`
`Kondakov et al. does not disclose that for each of the pixels that exist on the
`
`same scanning line as the subject pixel, when the first property value of the OLED
`
`device of the pixel is not within a predetermined range, the first property value of the
`
`OLED device of the pixel is not used in the statistical processing to derive the second
`
`property value for the scanning line.
`
`2 See also Kabe et al. at 1i [OO10]—[001 1] which discloses computing an average — or statistical mean — of
`brightness of a plurality of pixels comprising an image. See also Final Office Action dated July 18, 2012
`at pages 3-4.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`However, Winters does disclose that for each of the pixels that exist on the same
`
`scanning line as the subject pixel, when the first property value of the OLED device of
`
`the pixel is not within a predetermined range (Fig. 2, Steps 520-530; 11 [0051] discloses
`
`“Defective light producing elements can include light producing elements that produce
`
`abnormal brightness, such as light producing elements that are dim or overly
`
`bright... If such defective light producing elements were utilized in the pixels of the final
`
`OLED display, these pixels would be defective dead pixels"),
`
`the first property value of the OLED device of the pixel is not used in the
`
`statistical processing to derive the second property value for the scanning line (Fig. 2,
`
`Step 530-560; 11 [0054]-[0055] discloses recording the location of the defective pixel and
`
`adjusting the color filter pattern to account for the defective pixel(s). The adjusting of
`
`the color filter pattern is tantamount to removing the first property value of the OLED
`
`from the statistical processing to drive the second property).
`
`Kondakov et al. discloses a base organic light emitting diode (OLED) display
`
`device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Winters discloses a
`
`comparable OLED display device which has been improved in the same way as 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 Winters to that of Kondakov et
`
`al. for the predictable result of providing a high quality image even when one or more of
`
`the light producing elements are defective pixels (Winters at 11 [0011]-[0012]).
`
`In the event that it is found that Kondakov et al. does not disclose or render
`
`obvious the claimed aspect of “which exist on a same scanning line as the subject
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`pixel," then Noh is offered for contemplating this aspect (Claim 1, in particular, discloses
`
`“a horizontal dead pixel detection module, said horizontal dead pixel detection module
`
`
`determining if a base pixel is a dead pixel by comparing said base pixel with at least
`
`% pixel adjacent to said base pixel in the same roW’).
`
`The combination of Kondakov et al. and Winters discloses base device for
`
`identifying dead pixels (Winters at 1[ [0008], [0012]) upon which the claimed invention is
`
`an improvement. Noh discloses a comparable device for identifying dead pixels which
`
`has been improved in the same way as 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 Noh to that of the combination of Kondakov et al. and Winters for the
`
`predictable result of providing an apparatus for processing a dead pixel that can adjust
`
`the accuracy of detecting a dead pixel (Noh at 1[ [0009]).
`
`Finally, the newly added claim language of a determination unit having a failure
`
`determination unit which determines a failure pixel and a burn-in determination unit
`
`which compares the first property value and the second property value essentially
`
`recites functional aspects that are already subsumed within the other claimed elements
`
`and aspects, and consequently, is disclosed by the prior art. For example, both Winters
`
`and Noh, as discussed above, disclose determining a failure pixel (Le. a dead pixel),
`
`while Kondakov discloses comparing a first and second property.
`
`Indeed, MPEP
`
`2144.04(IV) articulates that changes in shape or configuration are obvious. Therefore,
`
`reallocating functionality to alternate structural elements, as Applicant has done here,
`
`cannot not render this claim patentable.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`While Kondakov discloses measuring and calculating at predetermined intervals
`
`(col. 5, ll. 57 to col. 6, ll. 4), the combination of Kondokov, Winters ,and Noh does not
`
`disclose that the statistical processing occurs at the predetermined time interval.
`
`However, Shen does disclose that the statistical processing occurs at the
`
`predetermined time intervals (Abstract discloses “deriv[ing] a correction coefficient that
`
`is applied to the nextdrive current for each pixel"; Figs. 2, 3, 9; col. 5, ll. 40 to col. 6, ll.
`
`2; col. 7, ll. 65 to col. 8, ll. 2).
`
`The combination of Kondakov, Winters, and Noh discloses a base OLED display
`
`device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Shen discloses a
`
`comparable OLED display device which has been improved in the same way as 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 Shen to that of the combination
`
`of Kondakov, Winters, and Noh for the predictable result of rapidly and accurately
`
`correcting non-uniformities of an initially calibrated display device during its life (Shen at
`
`col. 2, II. 48-65).
`
`8.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Kondakov, Winters, Noh, and Shen as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of
`
`Kabe et al. (JP 2002-278513-A, Published September 27, 2002).
`
`As to claim 4, the combination of Kondakov, Winters, Noh, and Shen discloses
`
`the display unit according to claim 1. Kondakov et al. implies but does not expressly
`
`disclose a line memory for storing the first property value of the OLED device of each of
`
`the plural pixels that exist on the scanning line (See Fig. 11; col. 6, ll. 9-13, it is well
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`known in the art that microcontrollers/microprocessors have memory in the form of
`
`registers and caches).
`
`However, Kabe et al. does disclose a line memory for storing the first property
`
`value of the OLED device of each of the plural pixels that exist on the scanning line (11
`
`[0030] affirmatively discloses "First, it describes about the method of measuring the
`
`current value which flows into ich organic EL device... The current amount which
`
`flows into M) organic EL device at this time is measured by a current measurement
`
`element, and a memory device is made to memorize a test result"; See also 11 [0060]
`
`which describes how current which flows into each organic EL element is measured).
`
`The combination of Kondakov, Winters, Noh, and Shen discloses a base OLED
`
`display device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Kabe et al.
`
`discloses a comparable OLED display device which has been improved in the same
`
`way as 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 Kabe et al. to that
`
`of the combination of Kondakov, Winters, Noh, and Shen for the predictable result of
`
`minimizing luminance variation among pixels (Kabe et al. at 1] [0010]-[0011]).
`
`9.
`
`Claims 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Kondakov et al. (US 7,079,091 B2, Patented July 18, 2006) in view of Winters (US
`
`2008/0085652 A1, Filed October 10, 2006), Noh (US 2008/0079826 A1, Filed October
`
`2, 2006), Kabe et al. (JP 2002-278513-A, Published September 27, 2002) and Shen
`
`(us 6,414,661 B1, Patented July 2, 2002)..
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`As to claim 5, Kondakov et al. discloses a display unit including a screen on
`
`which plural pixels each having an OLED device are arranged in a matrix (Abstract; col.
`
`6, ||. 59), which measures a first property value of the OLED device (Fig. 11,
`
`measurement circuit/ADC 12; col. 5, II. 30-34) of each of the plural pixels (col. 6, ll. 46-
`
`48) at a predetermined time interval to reflect a change in the first property value of the
`
`OLED device in an image signal (col. 5, ||. 63 to col. 6, ||. 6 discloses that measurement
`
`and calculation occurs at predetermined intervals without interfering with an image
`
`perceived by a user. A "signal representative of the accumulated charge" is analogous
`
`to a first property),
`
`wherein the change in the first property value of the OLED device of a subject
`
`pixel is obtained by comparing the first property value of the OLED device of the subject
`
`pixel with a second property value derived from a statistical processing of the first
`
`property values of the OLED devices of the pixels of the plural pixels (col. 4, II. 34-47,
`
`“adjusting driving current using measured transition voltage and predetermined
`
`parameters (slope and intercept) of a linear correlation between transition voltage
`
`and luminance" implicates statistical processing of the first property value) which exist
`
`on a same scanning line as the subject pixel (col. 6, II. 46-48).
`
`While Kondakov et al. reasonably suggests comparing the subject pixel with
`
`each of the plural pixels which exist on a same scanning line as the subject pixel,
`
`Kondakov et al. does not expressly disclose this aspect and that the first property value
`
`of the OLED device of each of the plural pixels that exist on the same scanning line as
`
`the subject pixel that is used in the statistical processing to derive the second property
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`value for the scanning line is in a predetermined range of the first property value of the
`
`OLED device of the subject pixel.
`
`However, Kabe et al. does disclose comparing the subject pixel with each of the
`
`plural pixels which exist on a same scanning line as the subject pixel that is used in the
`
`statistical processing to derive the second property value for the scanning line (Figs. 6-
`
`11 & 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), and that the first property value of the OLED
`
`device of each of the plural pixels that exist on the same scanning line as the subject
`
`pixel is in a predetermined range of the first property value of the OLED device of the
`
`subject pixel (11 [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 such that their emitted brightness is uniform.
`
`It follows that the first
`
`property of each of the plurality of pixels is necessarily within a predetermined range of
`
`the subject pixel in order that the brightness remain uniform).
`
`Kondakov et al. discloses a base OLED display device upon which the claimed
`
`invention is an improvement. Kabe et al. discloses a comparable OLED display device
`
`which has been improved in the same way as 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 Kabe et al. to that of Kondakov et al. for the predictable result of
`
`minimizing luminance variation among pixels (Kabe et al. at 1] [0010]—[0011]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`The combination of Kondakov et al. and Kabe et al. does not disclose that for
`
`each of the pixels that exist on the same scanning line as the subject pixel, if the first
`
`property value of the OLED device of the pixel is not within a predetermined range, the
`
`first property value of the OLED device of the pixel is not used in the statistical
`
`processing to derive the second property value for the scanning line.
`
`However, Winters does disclose that for each of the pixels that exist on the same
`
`scanning line as the subject pixel, if the first property value of the OLED device of the
`
`pixel is not within a predetermined range (Fig. 2, Step 520; ‘|j [0051] discloses “Defective
`
`light producing elements can include light producing elements that produce abnormal
`
`brightness, such as light producing elements that are dim or overly bright... If such
`
`defective light producing elements were utilized in the pixels of the final OLED display,
`
`these pixels would be defective dead pixels"),
`
`the first property value of the OLED device of the pixel is not used in the
`
`statistical processing to derive the second property value for the scanning line (Fig. 2,
`
`Step 530-560; 11 [0054]-[0055] discloses recording the location of the defective pixel and
`
`adjusting the color filter pattern to account for the defective pixel(s). The adjusting of
`
`the color filter pattern is tantamount to removing the first property value of the OLED
`
`from the statistical processing to drive the second property).
`
`The combination of Kondakov et al. and Kabe et al. discloses a base organic
`
`light emitting diode (OLED) display device upon which the claimed invention is an
`
`improvement. Winters discloses a comparable OLED display device which has been
`
`improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the teachings of
`
`Winters to that of the combination of Kondakov et al. and Kabe et al.
`
`for the predictable
`
`result of providing a high quality image even when one or more of the light producing
`
`elements are defective pixels (Winters at 1i [0011]—[0012]).
`
`In the event that it is found that the combination of Kondakov et al., Kabe et al.
`
`and Winters does not disclose or render obvious the claimed aspect of “which exist on a
`
`same scanning line as the subject pixel," then Noh is offered for contemplating this
`
`aspect (Claim 1, in particular, discloses “a horizontal dead pixel detection module, said
`
`horizontal dead pixel detection module determining if a base pixel is a dead pixel by
`
`
`comparing said base pixel with at least one pixel adjacent to said base pixel in the
`
`same roW’).
`
`The combination of Kondakov et al., Kabe et al., and Winters discloses base
`
`device for identifying dead pixels (Winters at 11 [0008], [0012]) upon which the claimed
`
`invention is an improvement. Noh discloses a comparable device for identifying dead
`
`pixels which has been improved in the same way as 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 Noh to that of the combination of Kondakov et al.,
`
`Kabe et al., and Winters for the predictable result of providing an apparatus for
`
`processing a dead pixel that can adjust the accuracy of detecting a dead pixel (Noh at 11
`
`[0009D.
`
`Finally, the newly added claim language of “a determination unit having a failure
`
`determination unit which determines a failure pixel and a burn-in determination unit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`which compares the first property value and the second property value” essentially
`
`recites functional aspects that are already subsumed within the other claimed elements
`
`and aspects, and consequently, is disclosed by the prior art. For example, both Winters
`
`and Noh, as discussed above, disclose determining a failure pixel (Le. a dead pixel),
`
`while Kondakov discloses comparing a first and second property.
`
`Indeed, MPEP
`
`2144.04(IV) articulates that changes in shape or configuration are obvious. Therefore,
`
`reallocating functionality to alternate structural elements, as Applicant has done here,
`
`cannot not render this claim patentable.
`
`While Kondakov discloses measuring and calculating at predetermined intervals
`
`(col. 5, ll. 57 to col. 6, ll. 4), the combination of Kondokov, Winters ,and Kabe does not
`
`disclose that the statistical processing occurs at the predetermined time interval.
`
`However, Shen does disclose that the statistical processing occurs at the
`
`predetermined time intervals (Abstract discloses “derive[ing] a correction coefficient that
`
`is applied to the nextdrive current for each pixel"; Figs. 2, 3, 9; col. 5, ll. 40 to col. 6, ll.
`
`2; col. 7, ll. 65 to col. 8, ll. 2).
`
`The combination of Kondakov, Winters, and Kabe discloses a base OLED
`
`display device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Shen discloses a
`
`comparable OLED display device which has been improved in the same way as 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 Shen to that of the combination
`
`of Kondakov, Winters, and Kabe for the predictable result of rapidly and accurately
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`correcting non-uniformities of an initially calibrated display device during its life (Shen at
`
`col. 2, II. 48-65).
`
`As to claim 7, the combination of Kondakov, Winters, Kabe, and Shen discloses
`
`the display unit according to claim 5. Kondakov et al. further discloses that the first
`
`property value of the OLED device of the subject pixel is represented by a voltage
`
`between terminals of the OLED device (col. 4, II. 34-51, The “transition voltage” is
`
`measured between the terminals of an OLED device; col. 6, II. 46-48).
`
`wherein the first property value of the OLED device of each of the plural pixels
`
`that exist on the same scanning line as the subject pixel is represented by a voltage
`
`between terminals of the OLED device (Fig. 11 ; col. 4, II. 34-51, The “transition voltage”
`
`is measured between the terminals of an OLED device; col. 6, II. 46-48), and
`
`wherein the first property value of the OLED device of each of the plural pixels
`
`that exist on the same scanning line as the subject pixel is represented by the voltage
`
`between terminals of the OLED device for receiving a specific current application within
`
`a predetermined range (Fig. 11 ; col. 4, II. 34-51, The “transition voltage” is measured
`
`between the terminals of an OLED device; col. 6, II. 46-48).
`
`As to claim 10, the combination of Kondakov, Winters, Kabe, and Shen discloses
`
`the display unit according to claim 5. Kabe et al. further discloses a line memory for
`
`storing the first property value of the OLED device of each of the plural pixels (11 [0030]
`
`affirmatively discloses "First, it describes about the method of measuring the current
`
`
`value which flows into each organic EL device... The current amount which flows into
`
`each organic EL device at this time is measured by a current measurement element,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`and a memory device is made to memorize a test result.";) that exist on the scanning
`
`line (Figs. 6-11 & 1i [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).
`
`Kondakov et al. discloses a base OLED display device upon which the claimed
`
`invention is an improvement. Kabe et al. discloses a comparable OLED display device
`
`which has been improved in the same way as 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 Kabe et al. to that of Kondakov et al. for the predictable result of
`
`minimizing luminance variation among pixels (Kabe et al. at 1] [0010]-[0011]).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`10.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 10 have been
`
`considered but they are believed to be addressed above, and therefore, are moot in
`
`view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
`
`Examiner finds no merit in Applicant’s contention that the Noh reference is not
`
`prior art. As indicated above, Noh is clearly prior art under pre-AlA 35 USC 102(e).
`
`Conclusion
`
`11.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`Cok (US 2005/0110728 A1, Published May 26, 2005) is made of record for its
`
`method of aging compensation in an OLED display (Fig. 1).
`
`Baharav et al. (US 2003/0001078 A1, Published January 2, 2003) is made of
`
`record for its disclosure of a bad pixel detection apparatus and correction in an imaging
`
`device (Title; Figs. 6 and 8).
`
`12.
`
`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
`
`CFR1.136(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 SANJIV D. PATEL whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270-5731. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:30AM
`
`to 5PM.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/000,293
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 2697
`
`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 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-