DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed November 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. Applicant argues that the previously cited references fail to disclose “based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first fame rate, maintain a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution, in the normal mode.”
Examiner replies that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 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 rejection below.
6. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. New citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection and such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0236021 A1), hereinafter referred to as Parmar, in view of Watanabe et al. (Japanese Patent Application No. 2013258451 A – cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe, Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0172622 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yoon, and Cai (Chinese Patent Publication No. 101094369 B).
10. Regarding claim 1, Parmar teaches a display device comprising: a content receiver receiving content having a first resolution (Paragraphs 84-85, Figure 10, marker 27 shows a network interface which can receive image data);
a display panel being drivable at a first frame rate with respect to the first resolution (Paragraphs 39-41 mention a display which can display content with adequate quality at a slower frame rate which can be considered the first frame rate; Paragraph 113 mention a display with a maximum frame rate in single line addressing mode);
a memory storing one or more instructions (Paragraph 108-109, Figure 14 marker 1440 shows a memory which stores the software);
and a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory to (Paragraph 109, Figure 14 marker 1410 shows a processor which executes instructions from the memory):
identify a frame rate of the received content (Paragraph 116, Figure 15 marker 1530 shows the frame rate setting module examines the received content at marker 1560 and 1545 and determines the frame rate);
selectively operate in any one of a dual line gating mode and a normal mode, based on the frame rate of the received content (Paragraph 116, 121, Figure 15 marker 1530 shows that it decides based on the determined frame rate to run in line multiplying mode shown at marker 1510, which is the same as the dual line gating mode, or the non-line multiplying mode show at marker 1515, which is the normal mode);
based on the frame rate of the received content being greater than the first frame rate, adjust a resolution of the received content to a second resolution, in the dual line gating mode (Abstract teaches that the resolution is lowered when using the line multiplying image pipeline or dual line gating mode; Paragraph 113, Figure 15 mentions that the frame rate of content may exceed the maximum frame rate of the display, which can be considered the first frame rate. To match the frame rate of the content, the frame rate setting module at marker 1530 may select the fast frame update mode which is also referred to as the line multiplying mode or dual line gating mode at marker 1510. The fast frame mode results in a halved display resolution);
synthesize the content having the second resolution (Paragraph 125 shows some implementations can implement a physical copy of the halved image or virtualize it);
and control the display panel to display a synthesized image at a second frame rate that is greater than the first frame rate (Figure 15 shows that after the line multiplying process, the image gets passed into the display at marker 1550 which has the frame rate 2x; Paragraph 41 and 106 mentions line doubling increases the maximum possible frame rate while adjusting the resolution).
However, Parmar fails to teach generating graphical content corresponding to the first resolution; based on the content being adjusted, adjust a size of graphical content to correspond to the second resolution of the content; based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first frame rate, maintain a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution, in the normal mode; and synthesizing the content having the second resolution and the graphical content having an adjusted size.
Watanabe teaches generating graphical content corresponding to the first resolution (Paragraph 5 teaches the On Screen Display (OSD) unit generates a screen or graphical content and overlays it on the input content like a video; Paragraph 12 teaches the OSD generates a menu display which can be considered graphical content; Paragraph 39-40 teaches the OSD unit obtains information about the input content resolution to output graphics that are of the same resolution);
based on the received content being adjusted to the second resolution, adjust a size of graphical content to correspond to the second resolution of the content (Paragraph 18 teaches the video or input content is resized through video resizing means. Paragraph 20 teaches when the OSD receives a signal indicating resizing from the video resizing means unit, the OSD resizes the OSD image through the OSD menu display size changing means to the second resolution; Paragraph 32 teaches the OSD size is determined and changed whenever any change triggers are received. One example change trigger is when the output video resolution is changed. Thus, when the output video resolution is changed to the second resolution, the graphical content size and resolution is also changed again through the steps taught in Paragraphs 39-40 where the OSD unit acquires the second resolution of the image and matches it. Resolution is interpreted to be the number of pixels so changing the resolution also changes the size. Paragraph 42 teaches that the OSD size is determined based on the resolution determined when resizing the resolution of the image or content. Thus, when the received content is resized, the OSD or graphical content is also resized based on the content needing to be resized from the acquired resolution information);
and synthesizing the content having the second resolution and the graphical content having an adjusted size (Paragraph 49 teaches the OSD menu screen, which had a size adjusted through the OSD menu display size changing means, is superimposed on the content having an adjusted resolution or size from the video resizing means).
Parmar and Watanabe are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display device that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar with the adjusting the graphical content size and resolution taught by Watanabe in order to automatically display the OSD screen at an appropriate size without the user needing to be aware of the resolution on the display (Watanabe Paragraph 15).
However, Parmar and Watanabe both fail to teach based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first frame rate, maintain a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution, in the normal mode.
Yoon teaches based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first frame rate, (Paragraph 111-113 mentions that the first frame rate corresponds to operating in the normal mode which is driving the gate lines one by one. It mentions that it would output a doubling-off driving instruction signal, which means to execute in the normal mode, if the frame rate of the content is determined to be equal to the first frame rate. It also mentions that the gate doubling-on mode, which is the dual line gating mode, is entered only when the frame rate is larger than the first frame rate. It would be obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art for the display to enter the normal mode if the frame rate is less than or equal to the first frame rate).
Parmar, Watanabe, and Yoon are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operation of the display device taught in Parmar and Watanabe with the clarification that the display operates in a normal mode when the frame rate is less than or equal to the first frame rate taught by Yoon in order to allow a display device to display content according to the content’s frame rate (Yoon Paragraph 19).
However, Parmar, Watanabe, and Yoon fail to teach maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution.
Cai teaches maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution (Paragraph 17 teaches the OSD size when generated will automatically match the resolution of the display. Thus, if the received content is displayed with one resolution, the graphical content or OSD will also be displayed with the same resolution. Resolution can be defined as number of pixels so the size of the graphical content and resolution is the same).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying content with different resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operation of the display device taught in Parmar in view of Watanabe and Yoon with maintaining the size of the graphical content during normal mode in order to fix irregular image quality and automatically set a display mode (Cai Paragraphs 3-4).
11. Regarding claim 7, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 1. Parmar further teaches wherein the display panel comprises a plurality of gate lines and a plurality of data lines, and wherein, in the dual line gating mode, two adjacent gate lines of the plurality of gate lines are simultaneously driven (Paragraph 38 mentions one can increase the frame rate by simultaneously writing the same image data to two lines of the display; Paragraph 100 also mentions two lines are simultaneously driven which increases the frame rate), and each of the plurality of data lines provides same data to pixels arranged in a same column (Paragraph 93, Figure 9 shows that pixels 130a and 130b have the same data written to them simultaneously. This shows the same data is given to pixels in the same column when driving two lines simultaneously).
12. Regarding claim 8, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 7. Parmar further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to repeatedly display one pixel line included in the content having the resolution adjusted to the second resolution through the two adjacent gate lines (Paragraph 38 mentions increasing frame rate by simultaneously writing the same image data to two lines of the display which also reduces the display resolution; Figure 11 shows the flow chart that allows for repeating the line multiplying process which enables a display of one pixel line across two adjacent lines; Figure 21 shows line multiplying can happen repeatedly for multiple frames).
13. Regarding claim 9, Parmar teaches an operating method of a display device, the display device comprising a display panel that is drivable at a first frame rate with respect to a first resolution (Paragraphs 39-41 mention a display which can display content with adequate quality at a slower frame rate which can be considered the first frame rate; Paragraph 113 mention a display with a maximum frame rate in single line addressing mode), the operating method comprising:
receiving content having the first resolution (Paragraphs 84-85, Figure 10, marker 27 shows a network interface which can receive image data);
identifying a frame rate of the received content (Paragraph 116, Figure 15 marker 1530 shows the frame rate setting module examines the received content at marker 1560 and 1545 and determines the frame rate);
selectively setting an operation mode of the display device to any one of a dual line gating mode and a normal mode, based on the frame rate of the content (Paragraph 116, 121, Figure 15 marker 1530 shows that it decides based on the determined frame rate to run in line multiplying mode shown at marker 1510, which is the same as the dual line gating mode, or the non-line multiplying mode show at marker 1515, which is the normal mode);
based on the frame rate of the received content being greater than the first frame rate, adjust a resolution of the received content to a second resolution, in the dual line gating mode (Abstract teaches that the resolution is lowered when using the line multiplying image pipeline or dual line gating mode; Paragraph 113, Figure 15 mentions that the frame rate of content may exceed the maximum frame rate of the display, which can be considered the first frame rate. To match the frame rate of the content, the frame rate setting module at marker 1530 may select the fast frame update mode which is also referred to as the line multiplying mode or dual line gating mode at marker 1510. The fast frame mode results in a halved display resolution);
synthesizing the content having the second resolution (Paragraph 125 shows some implementations can implement a physical copy of the halved image or virtualize it);
and displaying on the display panel a synthesized image at a second frame rate that is greater than the first frame rate (Figure 15 shows that after the line multiplying process, the image gets passed into the display at marker 1550 which has the frame rate 2x; Paragraph 41 and 106 mentions line doubling increases the maximum possible frame rate while adjusting the resolution).
However, Parmar fails to teach generating graphical content corresponding to the first resolution; based on the received content being adjusted to the second resolution, adjusting a size of graphical content to correspond to the second resolution of the content; based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first frame rate, maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution, in the normal mode; and synthesizing the content having the second resolution and the graphical content having an adjusted size.
Watanabe teaches generating graphical content corresponding to the first resolution (Paragraph 5 teaches the On Screen Display (OSD) unit generates a screen or graphical content and overlays it on the input content like a video; Paragraph 12 teaches the OSD generates a menu display which can be considered graphical content; Paragraph 39-40 teaches the OSD unit obtains information about the input content resolution to output graphics that are of the same resolution);
based on the received content being adjusted to the second resolution, adjusting a size of graphical content to correspond to the second resolution of the content (Paragraph 18 teaches the video or input content is resized through video resizing means. Paragraph 20 teaches when the OSD receives a signal indicating resizing from the video resizing means unit, the OSD resizes the OSD image through the OSD menu display size changing means to the second resolution; Paragraph 32 teaches the OSD size is determined and changed whenever any change triggers are received. One example change trigger is when the output video resolution is changed. Thus, when the output video resolution is changed to the second resolution, the graphical content size and resolution is also changed again through the steps taught in Paragraphs 39-40 where the OSD unit acquires the second resolution of the image and matches it. Resolution is interpreted to be the number of pixels so changing the resolution also changes the size. Paragraph 42 teaches that the OSD size is determined based on the resolution determined when resizing the resolution of the image or content. Thus, when the received content is resized, the OSD or graphical content is also resized based on the content needing to be resized from the acquired resolution information);
and synthesizing the content having the second resolution and the graphical content having an adjusted size (Paragraph 49 teaches the OSD menu screen, which had a size adjusted through the OSD menu display size changing means, is superimposed on the content having an adjusted resolution or size from the video resizing means).
Parmar and Watanabe are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operating method that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar with the adjusting the graphical content size and resolution taught by Watanabe in order to automatically display the OSD screen at an appropriate size without the user needing to be aware of the resolution on the display (Watanabe Paragraph 15).
However, Parmar and Watanabe both fail to teach based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first frame rate, maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution, in the normal mode.
Yoon teaches based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first frame rate, (Paragraph 111-113 mentions that the first frame rate corresponds to operating in the normal mode which is driving the gate lines one by one. It mentions that it would output a doubling-off driving instruction signal, which means to execute in the normal mode, if the frame rate of the content is determined to be equal to the first frame rate. It also mentions that the gate doubling-on mode, which is the dual line gating mode, is entered only when the frame rate is larger than the first frame rate. It would be obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art for the display to enter the normal mode if the frame rate is less than or equal to the first frame rate).
Parmar, Watanabe, and Yoon are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operating method of the display device taught in Parmar and Watanabe with the clarification that the display operates in a normal mode when the frame rate is less than or equal to the first frame rate taught by Yoon in order to allow a display device to display content according to the content’s frame rate (Yoon Paragraph 19).
However, Parmar, Watanabe, and Yoon fail to teach maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution.
Cai teaches maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution (Paragraph 17 teaches the OSD size when generated will automatically match the resolution of the display. Thus, if the received content is displayed with one resolution, the graphical content or OSD will also be displayed with the same resolution. Resolution can be defined as number of pixels so the size of the graphical content and resolution is the same).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying content with different resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operating method of the display device taught in Parmar in view of Watanabe and Yoon with maintaining the size of the graphical content during normal mode in order to fix irregular image quality and automatically set a display mode (Cai Paragraphs 3-4).
14. Regarding claim 15, Parmar teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable recording media having stored thereon a program that (Paragraph 108-109, Figure 14 marker 1440 shows a memory which stores the software), when executed by one or more processors (Paragraph 109, Figure 14 marker 1410 shows a processor which executes instructions from the memory), causes the one or more processors to perform an operating method of a display device comprising a display panel that is drivable at a first frame rate with respect to a first resolution (Paragraphs 39-41 mention a display which can display content with adequate quality at a slower frame rate which can be considered the first frame rate; Paragraph 113 mention a display with a maximum frame rate in single line addressing mode), the operating method comprising:
receiving content having the first resolution (Paragraphs 84-85, Figure 10, marker 27 shows a network interface which can receive image data);
identifying a frame rate of the received content (Paragraph 116, Figure 15 marker 1530 shows the frame rate setting module examines the received content at marker 1560 and 1545 and determines the frame rate);
selectively setting an operation mode of the display device to any one of a dual line gating mode and a normal mode, based on the frame rate of the received content (Paragraph 116, 121, Figure 15 marker 1530 shows that it decides based on the determined frame rate to run in line multiplying mode shown at marker 1510, which is the same as the dual line gating mode, or the non-line multiplying mode show at marker 1515, which is the normal mode);
based on the frame rate of the received content being greater than the first frame rate, adjust a resolution of the content to a second resolution, in the dual line gating mode (Abstract teaches that the resolution is lowered when using the line multiplying image pipeline or dual line gating mode; Paragraph 113, Figure 15 mentions that the frame rate of content may exceed the maximum frame rate of the display, which can be considered the first frame rate. To match the frame rate of the content, the frame rate setting module at marker 1530 may select the fast frame update mode which is also referred to as the line multiplying mode or dual line gating mode at marker 1510. The fast frame mode results in a halved display resolution);
synthesizing the content having the second resolution (Paragraph 125 shows some implementations can implement a physical copy of the halved image or virtualize it);
and displaying on the display panel a synthesized image at a second frame rate that is greater than the first frame rate (Figure 15 shows that after the line multiplying process, the image gets passed into the display at marker 1550 which has the frame rate 2x; Paragraph 41 and 106 mentions line doubling increases the maximum possible frame rate while adjusting the resolution).
However, Parmar fails to teach generating graphical content corresponding to the first resolution; based on the received content being adjusted to the second resolution, adjust a size of graphical content to correspond to the second resolution of the content; based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first frame rate, maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution, in the normal mode; and synthesizing the content having the second resolution and the graphical content having an adjusted size.
Watanabe teaches generating graphical content corresponding to the first resolution (Paragraph 5 teaches the On Screen Display (OSD) unit generates a screen or graphical content and overlays it on the input content like a video; Paragraph 12 teaches the OSD generates a menu display which can be considered graphical content; Paragraph 39-40 teaches the OSD unit obtains information about the input content resolution to output graphics that are of the same resolution);
based on the received content being adjusted to the second resolution, adjust a size of graphical content to correspond to the second resolution of the content (Paragraph 18 teaches the video or input content is resized through video resizing means. Paragraph 20 teaches when the OSD receives a signal indicating resizing from the video resizing means unit, the OSD resizes the OSD image through the OSD menu display size changing means to the second resolution; Paragraph 32 teaches the OSD size is determined and changed whenever any change triggers are received. One example change trigger is when the output video resolution is changed. Thus, when the output video resolution is changed to the second resolution, the graphical content size and resolution is also changed again through the steps taught in Paragraphs 39-40 where the OSD unit acquires the second resolution of the image and matches it. Resolution is interpreted to be the number of pixels so changing the resolution also changes the size. Paragraph 42 teaches that the OSD size is determined based on the resolution determined when resizing the resolution of the image or content. Thus, when the received content is resized, the OSD or graphical content is also resized based on the content needing to be resized from the acquired resolution information);
and synthesizing the content having the second resolution and the graphical content having an adjusted size (Paragraph 49 teaches the OSD menu screen, which had a size adjusted through the OSD menu display size changing means, is superimposed on the content having an adjusted resolution or size from the video resizing means).
Parmar and Watanabe are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording media with the operating method that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar with the adjusting the graphical content size and resolution taught by Watanabe in order to automatically display the OSD screen at an appropriate size without the user needing to be aware of the resolution on the display (Watanabe Paragraph 15).
However, Parmar and Watanabe both fail to teach based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first frame rate, maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution, in the normal mode.
Yoon teaches based on the frame rate of the received content being less than or equal to the first frame rate, (Paragraph 111-113 mentions that the first frame rate corresponds to operating in the normal mode which is driving the gate lines one by one. It mentions that it would output a doubling-off driving instruction signal, which means to execute in the normal mode, if the frame rate of the content is determined to be equal to the first frame rate. It also mentions that the gate doubling-on mode, which is the dual line gating mode, is entered only when the frame rate is larger than the first frame rate. It would be obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art for the display to enter the normal mode if the frame rate is less than or equal to the first frame rate).
Parmar, Watanabe, and Yoon are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording media with the operating method that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught in Parmar and Watanabe with the clarification that the display operates in a normal mode when the frame rate is less than or equal to the first frame rate taught by Yoon in order to allow a display device to display content according to the content’s frame rate (Yoon Paragraph 19).
However, Parmar, Watanabe, and Yoon fail to teach maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution.
Cai teaches maintaining a size of the graphical content to correspond to the first resolution (Paragraph 17 teaches the OSD size when generated will automatically match the resolution of the display. Thus, if the received content is displayed with one resolution, the graphical content or OSD will also be displayed with the same resolution. Resolution can be defined as number of pixels so the size of the graphical content and resolution is the same).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying content with different resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording media with the operating method that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught in Parmar in view of Watanabe and Yoon with maintaining the size of the graphical content during normal mode in order to fix irregular image quality and automatically set a display mode (Cai Paragraphs 3-4).
15. Regarding claim 16, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Parmar fails to teach the display device wherein the graphical content is generated by an operation executed in an operating system of the display device or in an application stored in the memory.
Watanabe teaches the display device wherein the graphical content is generated by an operation executed in an operating system of the display device or in an application stored in the memory (Paragraph 12 teaches the video signal processing device contains the OSD generating means which generates graphical content like a menu display screen. The OSD generating means in the video signal processing device can be considered the operating system inside the display device; Paragraph 47-48 teaches the display device can receive input from the user through the remote control transmission means into the command processing means. The command processing means issues a command to display an OSD menu screen which is graphical content. Thus, the graphical content is generated by a command or operation).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording media with the operating method that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar in view of Yoon and Cai with the graphical content generated by an operation from the operating system taught by Watanabe in order to automatically display the OSD screen at an appropriate size without the user needing to be aware of the resolution on the display (Watanabe Paragraph 15).
16. Regarding claim 17, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Parmar fails to teach the display device wherein the graphical content comprises at least one of an icon, an image, a text, a menu screen, or a user interface.
Watanabe teaches the display device wherein the graphical content comprises at least one of an icon, an image, a text, a menu screen, or a user interface (Paragraph 12 teaches the OSD generating means creates a menu display screen).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording media with the operating method that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar in view of Yoon and Cai with the graphical content being a menu screen taught by Watanabe in order to automatically display the OSD screen at an appropriate size without the user needing to be aware of the resolution on the display (Watanabe Paragraph 15).
17. Regarding claim 18, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teach the limitations of claim 1. However, Parmar fails to teach the display device wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to receive an input from a user, and wherein the graphical content is generated in response to the input being received.
Watanabe teaches the display device wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to receive an input from a user, and wherein the graphical content is generated in response to the input being received (Paragraph 47-48 teaches the display device can receive input from the user through the remote control transmission means into the command processing means. The command processing means issues a command to display an OSD menu screen which is graphical content. Thus, the graphical content is generated in response to the user’s input).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording media with the operating method that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar in view of Yoon and Cai with the graphical content generated by the user’s input taught by Watanabe in order to automatically display the OSD screen at an appropriate size without the user needing to be aware of the resolution on the display (Watanabe Paragraph 15).
18. Claim(s) 2, 6, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0236021 A1), hereinafter referred to as Parmar, in view of Watanabe et al. (Japanese Patent Application No. 2013258451 A), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe, Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0172622 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yoon, and Cai (Chinese Patent Publication No. 101094369 B) as applied to claim 1 and 9 respectively above, and further in view of Knox et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,351,292 B1), hereinafter referred to as Knox.
19. Regarding claim 2, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 1. Parmar further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
adjust the resolution of the received content to the second resolution by down-scaling a vertical resolution of the received content to ½ (Paragraph 113 explains the fast frame mode results in a halved display resolution);
However, Parmar, Watanabe, and Yoon fail to teach adjusting the size of the graphical content by scaling a vertical size of the graphical content to a 1/2 size of the first resolution.
Knox teaches adjusting the size of the graphical content by scaling a vertical size of the graphical content to a 1/2 size of the first resolution (Column 5 lines 31-55 teaches reducing a size of the OSD data or graphical content by half its original or first resolution. The halved OSD data only consists of every other OSD line which results in the vertical size of the graphical content being halved).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, Cai, and Knox are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display device that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai with the halving of the graphical content taught by Knox in order to reduce the memory bandwidth requirements of a displaying system (Knox Paragraph 2).
20. Regarding claim 6, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 1. Parmar further teaches wherein the second frame rate is double the first frame rate, and wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to, in the dual line gating mode:
down-scale a vertical resolution of the received content to ½ (Paragraph 113 explains the fast frame mode results in a halved display resolution);
and control the display panel such that the synthesized image is displayed at the second frame rate (Figure 15 shows that after the line multiplying process, the image gets passed into the display at marker 1550 which has the frame rate 2x and was reduced in resolution and size during the line multiplying process; Paragraph 41 and 106 mentions line doubling increases the maximum possible frame rate while adjusting the resolution).
However, Parmar and Watanabe fail to teach down-scaling a vertical size of the graphical content to ½.
Knox teaches down-scaling a vertical size of the graphical content to ½ (Column 5 lines 31-55 teaches reducing a size of the OSD data or graphical content by half its original or first resolution. The halved OSD data only consists of every other OSD line which results in the vertical size of the graphical content being halved).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, Cai, and Knox are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display device that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai with the halving of the graphical content taught by Knox in order to reduce the memory bandwidth requirements of a displaying system (Knox Paragraph 2).
21. Regarding claim 10, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 9. Parmar further teaches wherein the adjusting of the resolution of the received content to the second resolution comprises down-scaling a vertical resolution of the received content to ½ (Paragraph 113 explains the fast frame mode results in a halved display resolution),
However, Parmar and Watanabe fail to teach the adjusting of the size of the graphical content comprises scaling a vertical size of the graphical content to a 1/2 size of the first resolution.
Knox teaches the adjusting of the size of the graphical content comprises scaling a vertical size of the graphical content to a 1/2 size of the first resolution (Column 5 lines 31-55 teaches reducing a size of the OSD data or graphical content by half its original or first resolution. The halved OSD data only consists of every other OSD line which results in the vertical size of the graphical content being halved).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, Cai, and Knox are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operating method that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai with the halving of the graphical content taught by Knox in order to reduce the memory bandwidth requirements of a displaying system (Knox Paragraph 2).
22. Regarding claim 14, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 9. Parmar further teaches wherein the second frame rate is double the first frame rate, and wherein, in the dual line gating mode: the adjusting of the resolution of the received content to the second resolution comprises down-scaling a vertical resolution of the received content to ½ (Paragraph 113 explains the fast frame mode results in a halved display resolution), (Figure 15 shows that after the line multiplying process, the image gets passed into the display at marker 1550 which has the frame rate 2x and was reduced in resolution and size during the line multiplying process; Paragraph 41 and 106 mentions line doubling increases the maximum possible frame rate while adjusting the resolution).
However, Parmar and Watanabe fail to teach the adjusting of the size of the graphical content comprises down-scaling a vertical size of the graphical content to ½.
Knox teaches the adjusting of the size of the graphical content comprises down-scaling a vertical size of the graphical content to ½ (Column 5 lines 31-55 teaches reducing a size of the OSD data or graphical content by half its original or first resolution. The halved OSD data only consists of every other OSD line which results in the vertical size of the graphical content being halved).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, Cai, and Knox are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operating method that adjusts the content resolution and frame rate taught by Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai with the halving of the graphical content taught by Knox in order to reduce the memory bandwidth requirements of a displaying system (Knox Paragraph 2).
23. Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0236021 A1), hereinafter referred to as Parmar, in view of Watanabe et al. (Japanese Patent Application No. 2013258451 A), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe, Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0172622 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yoon, and Cai (Chinese Patent Publication No. 101094369 B) as applied to claim 1 and 9 respectively above, and further in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0043413 A1 - IDS).
24. Regarding claim 3, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Parmar and Watanabe fail to teach wherein the first frame rate is any one of 50 Hz, 60 Hz, 100 Hz, and 120 Hz, and the second frame rate is double the first frame rate.
Kim teaches wherein the first frame rate is any one of 50 Hz, 60 Hz, 100 Hz, and 120 Hz, and the second frame rate is double the first frame rate (Paragraph 117, Figure 8 shows that in mode M1, the second frame rate is double the initial frame rate and Kim does not limit any first frame rate. Thus, all first frame rates are allowed).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, Cai, and Kim are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display device in Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai with the first frame rate and second frame rate requirements in Kim in order to achieve a doubled frame rate by simultaneously driving two gate lines (Kim Paragraph 142).
25. Regarding claim 11, Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai teaches the limitations of claim 9. However, Parmar and Watanabe fail to teach wherein the first frame rate is any one of 50 Hz, 60 Hz, 100 Hz, and 120 Hz, and the second frame rate is double the first frame rate.
Kim teaches wherein the first frame rate is any one of 50 Hz, 60 Hz, 100 Hz, and 120 Hz, and the second frame rate is double the first frame rate (Paragraph 117, Figure 8 shows that in mode M1, the second frame rate is double the initial frame rate and Kim does not limit any first frame rate. Thus, all first frame rates are allowed).
Parmar, Watanabe, Yoon, Cai, and Kim are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of displaying content with changed resolutions. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operating method of the display device in Parmar in view of Watanabe, Yoon, and Cai with the first frame rate and second frame rate requirements in Kim in order to achieve a doubled frame rate by simultaneously driving two gate lines (Kim Paragraph 142).
Conclusion
26. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights