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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 24, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s Remarks dated November 24, 2025.
As for Applicant’s argument regarding the amendments to independent claims 1, 11, and 17 overcoming the art: “In contrast, Edmonds describes the timing generator 44 as in a display device 26. See Edmonds, paragraph 17; FIG. 3. Edmonds appears silent to describing the timing generator 44 as a controller of the image processing circuitry exterior to the electronic display, let alone the other recitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 16 or further clarifications in dependent claim 12. For at least these reasons, Edmonds does not appear to teach or suggest emission sync signals that are supplied by a controller of image processing circuitry exterior to an electronic display, as generally recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 16.” (Remarks, pages 8-9); in view of the broad nature of the term controller, the timing generator 44 of Edmonds may be referred to as a controller.
In addition, according to section 2144.04 of the MPEP, under the heading Rearrangement of Parts, in the case of In re Japikse the courts ruled “Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” Similarly, the placement of the timing generator 44 of Edmonds is an obvious matter of design choice.
As for Applicant’s argument regarding amended claim 2 overcoming the art: “The office action equated paragraph 25 of Edmonds to the recitations of dependent claim 2. See Office Action, p. 6. However, the Examiner conceded that Edmonds does not teach "the image to be displayed over the entire display panel during the first image frame is the same as the image to be displayed over the entire display panel during the second image frame. Since Edmonds does not teach or suggest all of the recitations of dependent claim 2, Edmonds and den Boer cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to these claims." Office Action, p. 5. Accordingly, Edmonds appears silent to recitations of dependent claim 2.” (Remarks, page 9); examiner fails to see why the combination of Edmonds and den Boer cannot teach claim 2.
Accordingly, amended independent claims 1, 11, and 17 remain rejected. The dependent claims remain rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds (US 2002/0118144 A1) in view of den Boer (US 2014/0240268 A1).
Instant Claim 1: An electronic device (“A video display system that co-locates a video display memory with the video display device,” (Edmonds, abstract) The video display device of Edmonds corresponds to the electronic device of the claim.)
comprising: image processing circuitry (“These devices can perform both video and non-video functions as individually directed by the graphics controller 22 (fig 2).” (Edmonds, paragraph 29) The graphics controller 22 of Edmonds corresponds to the image processing circuitry of the claim.)
configured to generate image data corresponding to an image to be displayed during a first image frame and a second image frame subsequent the first image frame, (“transmits to the display device those portions of the image data that have changed rather than continually updating the entire video image” (Edmonds, abstract) Each period that Edmonds displays the most recently transmitted image data corresponds to the image frame of the claim.
wherein the image data is not regenerated for the second image frame; (“The initial image data is transmitted to the video display at block 51 (fig 4), and that image data is written into the video memory at block 52 to establish the initial image. In a subsequent transmission, the image data for the changed portion of the image is transmitted to the video display at block 53, and that data is used to update only the affected areas of the video memory at block 52.” (Edmonds, paragraph 25) The unchanged portion of the image of Edmonds corresponds to the image data of the claim.)
and an electronic display comprising: a frame buffer configured to receive and store the image data from the image processing circuitry; (“The initial image data is transmitted to the video display at block 51 (fig 4), and that image data is written into the video memory at block 52 to establish the initial image.” (Edmonds, paragraph 25) The video display and video memory of Edmonds correspond to the electronic display and frame buffer of the claim, respectively.)
and a display panel (The video display of Edmonds corresponds to the display panel of the claim.)
configured to: display the image during the first image frame based on a first read of the image data from the frame buffer (“The initial image data is transmitted to the video display at block 51 (fig 4), and that image data is written into the video memory at block 52 to establish the initial image.” (Edmonds, paragraph 25))
in response to a first emission sync signal; (“Timing generator 44 (fig 3) can output horizontal and vertical sync signals to CRT driver 48, which uses those signals to time the sending of the digitized video data stream from video memory 27 to digital-to-analog converter (DAC) 45. The DAC outputs an analog data signal to a CRT (not shown) on output 49.” (Edmonds, paragraph 17))
and display the image during the second image frame based on a second read of the image data from the frame buffer in response to a second emission sync signal, (“In a subsequent transmission, the image data for the changed portion of the image is transmitted to the video display at block 53 (fig 4), and that data is used to update only the affected areas of the video memory at block 52.” (Edmonds, paragraph 25))
and wherein the first emission sync signal and the second emission sync signal are supplied by a controller of the image processing circuitry (“Timing generator 44 (fig 3) can output horizontal and vertical sync signals to CRT driver 48, which uses those signals to time the sending of the digitized video data stream from video memory 27 to digital-to-analog converter (DAC) 45. The DAC outputs an analog data signal to a CRT (not shown) on output 49.” (Edmonds, paragraph 17) The timing generator 44 of Edmonds corresponds to the controller of the claim.)
exterior to the electronic display. (According to section 2144.04 of the MPEP, under the heading Rearrangement of Parts, in the case of In re Japikse the courts ruled “Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” Similarly, the placement of the timing generator 44 of Edmonds is an obvious matter of design choice.)
Edmonds does not explicitly teach the following limitation of this claim:
wherein the image to be displayed over the entire display panel during the first image frame is the same as the image to be displayed over the entire display panel during the second image frame,
In a similar field of endeavor, however, den Boer does disclose adjusting the operations of a display device depending on whether the image to be displayed over the entire screen remains static over multiple frames.
wherein the image to be displayed over the entire display panel during the first image frame is the same as the image to be displayed over the entire display panel during the second image frame, (“In particular, a lower frame frequency of 1 to 6 Hz, for example, may be used to maintain a static image, reducing power consumption in the data driver by a factor of ten or more. For video, text entry, updates after touch events, scrolling, etc., the frame frequency may be restored automatically to a higher rate. In this manner, the frame-rate reduction may go unnoticed by the user.” (den Boer, paragraph 26) Although Edmonds is focused on situations where only a portion of the displayed image remains static over multiple frames, obviously there are times when the entire displayed image remains static over multiple frames. In such instances, Edmonds may extend his method to include the entire screen.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the display device as taught by Edmonds, wherein a special display method is utilized only when a portion of the displayed image remains static over multiple frames; with the display device as taught by den Boer, wherein a special display method is utilized when the entire displayed image remains static over multiple frames. Such a combination involves incorporating a known feature (modifying display operations depending on an entire displayed image) into a known method (Edmonds) in order to yield the predictable results of extending the situations of when Edmonds’s advantageous method may be utilized.
Instant Claim 2: The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the image data corresponding to the image is sent to the frame buffer only once for being displayed during both the first image frame and the second image frame. (“The initial image data is transmitted to the video display at block 51 (fig 4), and that image data is written into the video memory at block 52 to establish the initial image. In a subsequent transmission, the image data for the changed portion of the image is transmitted to the video display at block 53, and that data is used to update only the affected areas of the video memory at block 52.” (Edmonds, paragraph 25))
Instant Claim 4: The electronic device of claim 1, comprising a display controller configured to receive the first emission sync signal and direct the display panel to display the image during the first image frame in response to the first emission sync signal. (“Timing generator 44 (fig 3) can output horizontal and vertical sync signals to CRT driver 48, which uses those signals to time the sending of the digitized video data stream from video memory 27 to digital-to-analog converter (DAC) 45. The DAC outputs an analog data signal to a CRT (not shown) on output 49.” (Edmonds, paragraph 17) The CRT driver 48 of Edmonds corresponds to the display controller of the claim.)
Instant Claim 6: The electronic device of claim 1, comprising an image datalink coupled between the image processing circuitry and the electronic display, wherein the frame buffer is configured to receive the image data via the image datalink. (“FIG. 2 shows a system 21 of the invention, containing a graphics controller 22 and a communication channel 24 connecting graphics controller 22 to display devices 26 and 28, which contain video memories 27 and 29, respectively.” (Edmonds, paragraph 13) The communication channel 24 corresponds to the image datalink of the claim.)
Instant Claim 7: The electronic device of claim 6, comprising a command bus separate from the image datalink, wherein the electronic display is configured to receive the first emission sync signal via the command bus. (“Timing generator 44 (fig 3) can output horizontal and vertical sync signals to CRT driver 48,” (Edmonds, paragraph 17) Referring to fig 3 of Edmonds, the communication line (“command bus”) between timing generator 44 and CRT driver 48 is internal to display device 26. Therefore, this communication line is separate from the communication channel illustrated in fig 2 of Edmonds, which is external to display device 26.)
Instant Claim 11: (Method claim 11 and apparatus claim 1 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to apparatus claim 1.)
Instant Claim 12: The method of claim 11, comprising supplying, via the controller, the first emission sync signal and the second emission sync signal with a maintained timing. (“Timing generator 44 (fig 3) can output horizontal and vertical sync signals to CRT driver 48, which uses those signals to time the sending of the digitized video data stream from video memory 27 to digital-to-analog converter (DAC) 45.” (Edmonds, paragraph 17))
Instant Claim 14: The method of claim 11, wherein the image data is transmitted to the frame buffer a first time before the first image frame and is not transmitted a second time between the first time and the second image frame. (“The initial image data is transmitted to the video display at block 51 (fig 4), and that image data is written into the video memory at block 52 to establish the initial image. In a subsequent transmission, the image data for the changed portion of the image is transmitted to the video display at block 53, and that data is used to update only the affected areas of the video memory at block 52.” (Edmonds, paragraph 25))
Instant Claim 15: The method of claim 11, wherein the image data is transmitted via an image datalink coupled between the image processing circuitry and the electronic display, (This portion of claim 15 is substantially identical to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
wherein the electronic display is configured to receive the first emission sync signal and the second emission sync signal via a command bus. (This portion of claim 15 is substantially identical to claim 7, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Instant Claim 16: The method of claim 15, wherein the command bus comprises a lower speed datalink than the image datalink. (Although Edmonds does not explicitly teach the relative speed of one communication channel relative to another communication channel, it would be obvious to try having one communication channel vary in speed relative to another communication channel. There are only three possibilities: equal to, less than, and greater than.)
Instant Claim 17: an image datalink, (“FIG. 2 shows a system 21 of the invention, containing a graphics controller 22 and a communication channel 24 connecting graphics controller 22 to display devices 26 and 28, which contain video memories 27 and 29, respectively.” (Edmonds, paragraph 13) The communication channel 24 corresponds to the image datalink of the claim.)
The remainder of claim 17 is substantially included within claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Instant Claim 18: The electronic display of claim 17, comprising a display controller configured to receive the plurality of emission sync signals and trigger the display panel to read the frame buffer and display the single image in response to each emission sync signal of the plurality of emission sync signals. (“Timing generator 44 (fig 3) can output horizontal and vertical sync signals to CRT driver 48, which uses those signals to time the sending of the digitized video data stream from video memory 27 to digital-to-analog converter (DAC) 45. The DAC outputs an analog data signal to a CRT (not shown) on output 49.” (Edmonds, paragraph 17) The CRT driver 48 of Edmonds corresponds to the display controller of the claim.)
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds, in view of den Boer, and further in view of Ayres (US 2003/0016201 A1).
Instant Claim 3: The electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the image processing circuitry is configured to enter a low power mode after generating the image data and maintain the low power mode during the second image frame. (Edmonds teaches the video display device in accordance with claim 1, but does not disclose a low power mode. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ayres teaches a low power mode for a display device: “The integrated memory (which may be limited to just 1 bit/colour due to layout restrictions) is then used in a low power mode for displaying static images.” (Ayres, paragraph 10))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the video display device as taught by Edmonds, which displays static images; with the display device as taught by Ayres, wherein displaying static images triggers a low power mode. Such a combination involves incorporating a known technique (Ayres) into a known device in order to yield the predictable result of activating a low power mode for displaying static images since less power is necessary for displaying a static image.
Instant Claim 13: (Claim 13 is substantially identical to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Claims 5, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds, in view of den Boer, and further in view of Gandhi (US 2011/0148948 A1).
Instant Claim 5: The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the display controller is configured to delay directing the display panel to display the image by an emission delay. (Edmonds teaches the video display device in accordance with claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an emission delay. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gandhi teaches such a delay in a display apparatus: “If the update line 522 (fig 5A) is activated (step 574 (fig 5B)) too early after the actuate line 506 voltage is brought to the common line 518 voltage (step 572), the stored next state of the next state data can be corrupted by present state data of the latch that has not had enough time to decay away. This necessary non-overlap timing can be a function of circuit parasitics, transistor threshold voltages, capacitor size and stored data voltage levels. For example, the delay needed between steps 572 and 574 may be approximately 10 .mu.s, however this delay time may be considerably longer or shorter depending on the display.” (Gandhi, paragraph 129))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the video display device as taught by Edmonds; with the display apparatus as taught by Ghandi, wherein a delay feature is used in between steps of the display process. Such a combination involves incorporating a known technique (Ghandi) into a known device in order to yield the predictable result of providing enough time for parasitic and unwanted voltages to decay away.
Instant Claim 8: The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the image data comprises a set of bitplanes, wherein displaying the image during the first image frame comprises controlling light emissions at a plurality of pixel locations for a plurality of subframes of the first image frame, and wherein each of the plurality of subframes corresponds to a respective bitplane of the set of bitplanes. (Edmonds teaches the video display device in accordance with claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the use of bitplanes. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gandhi teaches bitplanes in a display apparatus: “The data which is loaded into the array for each sub-frame image is referred to as a sub-frame data set and, for the example of FIG. 1D, the sub-frame data set is referred to as a bitplane. A bitplane includes data for pixels in multiple columns and multiple rows of a display corresponding to a single significance value of a grayscale coded word for a color component in the image frame.” (Gandhi, paragraph 62))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the video display device as taught by Edmonds; with the display apparatus as taught by Ghandi, wherein a delay feature is used in between steps of the display process. Such a combination involves incorporating a known feature (Ghandi) into a known device in order to yield the predictable result of providing an enhanced tool for controlling the light emissions of the pixels.
Instant Claim 19: (Claim 19 is substantially identical to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds, in view of den Boer, and further in view of Lieb (US 2008/0158641 A1).
Instant Claim 9: The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the display panel comprises a reflective technology display panel. (Edmonds teaches the video display device in accordance with claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the use of reflective technology. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lieb teaches such reflective technology for a display device: “For example, the light valve pixels can be reflective pixels (e.g. reflective and deflectable micromirrors or liquid-crystal-on-silicon devices),” (Lieb, paragraph 27))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the video display device as taught by Edmonds; with the display device as taught by Lieb, wherein reflective technology is used. “Because the mirror plates are capable of being moved to different angles or positions, a beam of incident light can thus be reflected to different spatial directions, a process of which is referred to as spatial modulation of the incident light.” (Lieb, paragraph 29).
Instant Claim 10: The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the reflective technology display panel comprises: an illuminator configured to generate light; (“When used in direct view image system 100 (fig 1), light source 102 may comprise any suitable types of illuminators, such as arc lamps or solid state illuminators (e.g. lasers and light-emitting-diodes).” (Lieb, paragraph 28))
and a plurality of mirrors configured to selectively control emissions of the light at a respective plurality of pixel locations. (“For demonstration purpose, FIG. 4 schematically illustrates a cross-sectional view of a portion of an exemplary array of micromirrors, which can be used in the light valve (108).” (Lieb, paragraph 29))
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds, in view of den Boer, and further in view of Lieb and Gandhi.
Instant Claim 20: The electronic display of claim 17, wherein the display panel comprises: an illuminator configured to generate light; and a plurality of mirrors configured to selectively control light emissions of the light at a respective plurality of pixel locations according to the image data, (This portion of claim 20 is substantially identical to claim 10, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
wherein the image data comprises a set of bitplanes, and wherein displaying the single image during an image frame of the plurality of image frames comprises controlling the light emissions at the respective plurality of pixel locations for a plurality of subframes of the image frame, wherein each of the plurality of subframes corresponds to a respective bitplane of the set of bitplanes. (This portion of claim 20 is substantially identical to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yaron Cohen whose telephone number is (571)270-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on 571-272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YARON COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2626