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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 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.
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.
Claim 1, and 8-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (US 2023/0114963) in view of Uhm (US 2017/0287112) and Pyo (US 2021/0248596).
Regarding claim 1, Jun teaches A method comprising: determining an image to be displayed on an emissive display, the emissive display comprising a plurality of pixels; determining an on-pixel ratio (OPR) for the image, the OPR indicative of a percentage of emitting pixels to non-emitting pixels for displaying the image; generating a bionic image based on the determined OPR ([0028] teaches the timing controller will receive image data RGB from the outside and calculate the on-pixel ratio using the image data RGB. Where the ratio corresponds to the size of the image on the screen. [0037] and Fig. 2 show the bionic image based on the on-pixel ration); combining the bionic image with the image to form a combined image, and displaying the image (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 with the respective description express how values from the OPR LUT is applied to the data image RGB to be displayed displayed.). Although Jun teaches the limitations as discussed above, he fails to teach the combined image configured to have a higher luminance for a focus area of the combined image and to reduce a luminance to a lower luminance for an area outside of the focus area of the combined image effective to reduce a power expenditure by the emissive display.
However in the field of display images for a user, Uhm teaches displaying an image configured to have a higher luminance for a focus area of the combined image and to reduce a luminance to a lower luminance for an area outside of the focus area of the combined image effective to reduce a power expenditure by the emissive display (Figs. 9-10 shows display are 10 with high brightness and display area 163/165 with lower brightness level than display area 10.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of displaying an image as taught by Jun with the method of displaying an image as taught by Uhm. This combination would provide a reduced power usage of the device while maximizing user interaction. Although the combination teaches the limitations as discussed above, they fail to teach the determining the OPR for the image comprising: determining a display brightness value (DBV) of the emissive display; and determining a first amount of a first color, a second amount of a second color, and a third amount of a third color of the emissive display displaying the image to calculate a first weighting parameter for the first color, a second weighting parameter for the second color, and a third weighting parameter for the third color; and wherein the OPR is based the DBV, the amount of the first color, the amount of the second color, the amount of the third color, the first weighting parameter for the first color, the second weighting parameter for the second color, and the third weighting parameter for the third color.
However in the field of driving a display device, Pyo teaches the determining the OPR for the image comprising: determining a display brightness value (DBV) of the emissive display ([0121-0124] Fig. 17 DBVi); and determining a first amount of a first color, a second amount of a second color, and a third amount of a third color of the emissive display displaying the image to calculate a first weighting parameter for the first color, a second weighting parameter for the second color, and a third weighting parameter for the third color ([0133] teaches OPR is based on each color and has a weight for each color); and wherein the OPR (COFSm) is based the DBV, the amount of the first color, the amount of the second color, the amount of the third color, the first weighting parameter for the first color, the second weighting parameter for the second color, and the third weighting parameter for the third color (Figs. 17 and 19 compensation offset converter 153 generates a COFSm signal based on based on weighted DBV and OPR [0135]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of displaying an image as taught by Jun with the method of displaying an image as taught by Uhm and the method as taught by Pyo. This combination would provide a reduced power usage of the device while maximizing user interaction.
Regarding claim 8, Pyo teaches determining a first DBV of the emissive display while displaying the image, wherein a first threshold OPR corresponds to the first DBV ([0137] threshold CR1); and
wherein combining the bionic image with the image further comprises combining the bionic image with the image when the determined OPR exceeds the first threshold OPR (Images as seen in Figs. 7-11).
Regarding claim 9, Pyo teaches determining a second DBV of the emissive display while displaying a second image(second DBV based on displaying another image and being detected [0121-0124]), wherein a second threshold OPR corresponds to the second DBV, wherein the second DBV differs from the first DBV and the second threshold OPR differs from the first threshold OPR ([0138] CR2); and
determining an OPR of the emissive display while displaying the second image (OPR determined for a second image with ref to claim 1); and
wherein combining the bionic image with the image further comprises combining the bionic image with the second image when the determined OPR of the emissive display while displaying the second image exceeds the second threshold OPR(Images as seen in Figs. 7-11).
Regarding claim 10, Pyo teaches further comprising determining a DBV of the emissive display while displaying the image, the DBV comprising a first DBV ([0107] and a second DBV ([0110]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (US 2023/0114963) in view of Uhm (US 2023/0145126), Pyo (US 2021/0248596), Yum (US 2021/0020098).
Regarding claim 2, Jun in view of Uhm teach the limitations as discussed above and both teach processors for executing image processing based on the on-pixel ratio but they fail to teach the bionic image is generated by a system-on-chip (SoC), the SoC is coupled to the emissive display.
However in the field of processing an image based on the on-pixel ratio, Yum teaches the bionic image is generated by a system-on-chip (SoC), the SoC is coupled to the emissive display ([0144-0145] Fig. 16 teach the SoC controls overall operation of the mobile device 700.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of displaying an image as taught by Jun with the method of displaying an image as taught by Uhm, the method as taught by Pyo, and the processing method as taught by Yum. This combination would provide a reduced power usage of the device while maximizing user interaction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE L MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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 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.
/ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621