DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see claim 20), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,068,551 (hereinafter Choi) in view of Albrecht et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0005898 (hereinafter Albrecht).
Consider claim 1, Choi teaches a computing device comprising (Figure 1): a display (Figure 1); a display driver circuit configured to convert code words to analog signals for driving output at the display (Figure 1, DAC 114/116 Figure 2, 216); one or more processors (Figure 1, processing device 100) configured to provide code words to the display driver circuit for driving output at the display (column 3, lines 1-8, bits); and circuitry configured to:
determine that analog dimming of the display is in progress (Figure 1 and column 2, lines 45-50, the display circuitry 124 may modify or further adjust the analog control signals and may combine the analog control signals with other inputs to operate the backlight at the operating level specified by the display controller 120. Thus, the controller determines an analog signal in order to modify or adjust the analog control signals. column 3, lines 54-64, standby mode or low-power (power and thus current) and further refers to dimly illumination other pixels), wherein the analog dimming includes varying a power supplied to the display (column 3, lines 54-64, standby mode or low-power (power and thus current) and further refers to dimly illumination other pixels); based on determining that the analog dimming of display is in progress select an operating mode of the computing device to be dimmed mode (column 3, lines 54-64, a fingerprint scan to exit a standby mode is, therefore, one example of a situation for which it may be desirable to brightly illuminate some display pixels (e.g., in a fingerprint scanning region) while dimly illuminating other pixels. column 2, lines 45-50, the display circuitry 124 may modify or further adjust the analog control signals…to operate the backlight at the operating level specified by the display controller 120); and select a gamma curve used by the display driver circuit for converting code words provided by the one or more processors configured to provide code words to the display driver circuit (column 3, lines 1-8, 256 bits to represent 256 greyscale values. Figure 1, gamma curves in 122) for driving output at the display to brightness levels based on the operating mode of the computing device (Figure 1, Standby mode and HB mode), wherein: the gamma curve is selected from a plurality of gamma curves (Figure 1, gamma curves 132, 134 and 136), the operating mode is one of the dimmed mode or a non-dimmed mode (Figure 1, standby mode and HB mode, see also column 3, lines 54-64 (e.g. exit a low-power or standby mode)), when the operating mode is the dimmed mode, the selected gamma curve comprises a first value gamma curve (Figure 1 and column 3, lines 9-22, gamma curve 136) , wherein the first value gamma curve maps a first plurality of code words to brightness levels less than a threshold (Figure 1, gamma curve 136, levels (and corresponding bits) less than 80L (see luminance axis)), and when the operating mode is the non-dimmed mode, the selected gamma curve comprises a second value gamma curve (Figure 1 and column 3, lines 9-22, gamma curve 132 or 134), wherein the first value is higher than the second value (Figure 1, gamma curve 136 is located to the right with respect to 132 or 134), wherein the second value gamma curve maps a second plurality of code words to brightness levels less than the threshold (Figure 1, gamma curve 132, level (and corresponding bits) less than 80L), a number of the first plurality of code words being greater than a number of the second plurality of code words (Figure 1, bits corresponding to gamma curve 136 being greater than bits corresponding to gamma curve 132 since gamma curve 136 is located to the right with respect to gamma curve 132).
Choi does not appear to specifically disclose direct current and based on determining that the direct current dimming of the display is in progress, select an operating mode of the computing device to be a dimmed mode and apply a dimming layer in a digital domain to digitally dim the display.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Albrecht teaches dynamic dimming ranges (abstract) and further teaches direct current ([0024], DC source) and based on determining that the direct current dimming of the display is in progress (Figure 13, determine if knee point change in 102. Figure 13, analog control signal in 108. [0072], the knee point is a threshold luminance value that is used to determine whether light sources 64 are to be controlled using an analog control scheme (considered as direct current dimming) or a digital control scheme (e.g., a PWM scheme). The knee point also controls the dimming range that is achievable under a PWM dimming scheme), select an operating mode of the computing device to be a dimmed mode (Figure 13, determine if knee point change in 102. Figure 13, PWM 108. [0032], digital (e.g. pulse-width modulation) diming scheme), and apply a dimming layer in a digital domain to digitally dim the display ([0032], digital (e.g. pulse-width modulation) diming scheme).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a dimming layer in a digital domain as taught by Albrecht with the benefit that backlight control circuitry may determine which dimming scheme to use based on the desired backlight brightness as suggested in [0032].
Consider claim 3, Choi and Albrecht teach all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Choi teaches wherein: the display further comprises a fingerprint sensor in a first area of the display (column 3, lines 54-64 and figure 1, 118), and the circuitry is configured to: determine a fingerprint verification procedure using the fingerprint sensor is in progress (column 3, lines 54-64), and based on determining the fingerprint verification procedure is in progress, select the operating mode of the computing device to be a dimmed mode (column 3, lines 54-64, a fingerprint scan to exit a standby mode is, therefore, one example of a situation for which it may be desirable to brightly illuminate some display pixels (e.g., in a fingerprint scanning region) while dimly illuminating other pixels).
Consider claim 4, Choi and Albrecht teach all the limitations of claim 3. In addition, Choi teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: determine the fingerprint verification procedure is complete; and based on determining the fingerprint verification procedure is complete, select the operating mode of the computing device to be the non-dimmed mode (column 3, lines 23-27, when the processing device 100 exits the low brightness setting, the display controller 120 may recalibrate and instruct the primary DAC 114 to provide output voltages that follow a different, higher-power gamma curve, such as the gamma curve 132 (see also column 3, lines 54-64)).
Consider claim 5, Choi and Albrecht teach all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Choi teaches wherein in the dimmed mode, a dimming is applied to the display (Figure 1, Standby mode and 122), and wherein in the non-dimmed mode, the dimming layer is not applied to the display (Figure 1, HB mode and 122). Brush teaches the dimming layer (figure 13 and [0032], PWM in 108, see motivation to combine in claim 1).
Consider claim 7, Choi and Albrecht teach all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Choi teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: determine the analog dimming of the display is complete (column 3, lines 54-64, fingerprint authentication to unlock. Figure 1 and column 2, lines 45-50, ADC); and based on determining the analog domain dimming of the display is complete (column 3, lines 54-64), select the operating mode of the computing device to be the non-dimmed mode (column 3, lines 54-64, exits low-power mode). Furthermore, Albrecht teaches direct current in [0024].
Consider claim 9, Choi and Albrecht teach all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Choi teaches one or more processors (Figure 1, 100) is configured to provide different code words to achieve a desired brightness level of the display based on the operating mode (column 3, lines 1-8, bits to represent greyscale values).
Consider claim 10, Choi and Albrecht teach all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Choi teaches wherein the circuitry is part of an application processor (Figure 1, 100. Column 9, lines 37-46, application program interfaces).
Consider claim 11, it includes the limitations of claim 1 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 13, it includes the limitations of claim 3 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 14, it includes the limitations of claim 4 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 15, it includes the limitations of claim 5 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 17, it includes the limitations of claim 7 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 19, it includes the limitations of claim 9 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 20, it includes the limitations of claim 1 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 21, it includes the limitations of claim 1 and thus rejected by the same reasoning. In addition, Choi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium that when executed by a computing device causes the computing device (column 8, lines 63-65) to perform a method of displaying images by the computing device (Figure 1, 100, standby mode and HB mode).
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Albrecht as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0319381 (hereinafter Xiao).
Consider claim 8, Choi and Albrecht teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Choi does not appear to disclose the first value gamma curve is a gamma curve 4.0, and wherein the second value gamma curve is a gamma curve 2.2.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Xiao teaches determining a target gamma curve in (abstract) and further teaches the first value gamma curve is a gamma curve 4.0, and wherein the second value gamma curve is a gamma curve 2.2 (Figure 3, gamma parameter is 2 or 4. In addition, [0068], gamma parameter may be 2.2).
Therefore, it would obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide different gamma parameters as taught by Xiao with the benefit that different modes of the display device may correspond to different gamma parameters as suggested in [0063]. In addition, the two gamma curves shown in figure 3 by Xia are related to the art as suggested in [0030].
Consider claim 18, it includes the limitations of claim 8 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 (see new reference Albrecht).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO W FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-5512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, AMR A AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/ROBERTO W FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621