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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 March 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambhatla et al. (US 2012/0068993) in view of Pangam et al. (US 2015/0145875).
Regarding claim 1:
Kambhatla discloses:
Claim 1
Kambhatla
1. (currently amended): A method of operating an application processor, the method comprising:
Paragraph 30
determining whether to update configuration information according to an application;
Paragraph 14: "application can issue a request"
issuing a synchronous command when the configuration information is to be updated;
Paragraph 21: "mode change request"
storing the synchronous command in a synchronous command storage that is separate from a general command storage that stores a general command;
Not disclosed by Kambhatla
In response to a transmission request signal from a display driver integrated circuit, transmitting, from the application processor, the synchronous command that has priority over the general command to the display driver integrated circuit; and
Paragraph 29: “the display driver requests…,” where the command is paragraph 29: "mode set call," but Kambhatla does not indicate it has priority over the general command.
after receiving, by the application processor, a transmission acknowledgment of the synchronous command from the display driver integrated circuit, transmitting, from the application processor, frame data according to a frame rate corresponding to the synchronous command to the display driver integrated circuit.
Paragraph 25: "indicating completion," paragraph 26: "new frame buffer at the new refresh rate"
Kambhatla does not disclose:
"storing the synchronous command in a synchronous command storage that is separate from a general command storage that stores a general command;" where
the synchronous command "has priority over the general command"
Pangam discloses:
storing the synchronous command in a synchronous command storage that is separate from a general command storage that stores a general command; where the synchronous command "has priority over the general command (Paragraph 62 -- "commands which are sent to the dynamic queue 734." These are synchronous commands because they are executed with a new frame as per paragraph 65, where the command scheduler gives these commands priority as per paragraph 79.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kambhatla the elements taught by Pangam.
The rationale is as follows:
Kambhatla and Pangam are directed to the same field of art. Pangam discloses that without this commands are not guaranteed to be processed promptly (e.g., paragraphs 40-41). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 3:
Kambhatla in view of Pangam discloses:
wherein the synchronous command is issued in at least one of video mode or command mode (Pangam discloses these two modes in, e.g., paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 4:
Kambhatla in view of Pangam discloses:
determining whether transmitting a general command to the display driver integrated circuit is allowed; and transmitting the general command to the display driver integrated circuit when transmitting the general command is allowed (as per the priority scheme of paragraph 79, where the static queue contains general commands).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khambhatla in view of Pangam, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2023/0072161)
Regarding claim 5:
Khambhatla in view of Pangam discloses a method as discussed above.
Khambhatla in view of Pangam does not disclose:
“wherein the synchronous command is transmitted in a command allowable section of a vertical frame porch section.”
Lin discloses wherein the synchronous command is transmitted in a command allowable section of a vertical frame porch section (e.g., paragraph 55-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Khambhatla in view of Pangam the elements taught by Lin.
The rationale is as follows:
Khambhatla, Pangam, and Lin are directed to the same field of art.
Although Khambhatla discloses transmitting a command it doesn’t say where in the frame structure the command is placed. Liu shows that in very similar circumstances commands of this kind can be in the vertical frame area. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6:
Khambhatla, etc., discloses:
wherein the general command is transmitted in a vertical frame porch (VFP) section (Lin paragraphs 55-56).
Regarding claim 7:
Khambhatla, etc., discloses:
wherein the synchronous command is transmitted between neighboring emission synchronization signals (the VFP is between VSYNC signals).
Regarding claim 9:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 10:
Khambhatla, etc., discloses:
wherein, after the transmission acknowledgment of the synchronous command is received from the display driver integrated circuit, the application processor and the display driver integrated circuit change the configuration information when a frame starts (Khambhatla paragraph 29).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khambhatla in view of Pangam, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2017/0041086; hereafter Park ‘086)
Regarding claim 8:
Khambhatla, etc., discloses a method as discussed above.
Khambhatla, etc., does not disclose:
“wherein a vertical synchronization activation (VSA) section starts in response to a synchronous command transmission acknowledgment signal instructing the transmission acknowledgment of the synchronous command.”
Park ‘086 discloses:
That a frame starts with a vertical synchronization activation (VSA) section (paragraph 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Khambhatla, etc., wherein a vertical synchronization activation (VSA) section starts in response to a synchronous command transmission acknowledgment signal instructing the transmission acknowledgment of the synchronous command, as suggested by Park ‘086.
The rationale is as follows:
Khambhatla, etc., and Park ‘086 are directed to the same field of art.
Khambhatla already discloses starting a new frame after the acknowledgement of the command. Khambhatla just doesn’t call this a “vertical synchronization activation section.” Park ‘086 shows that a new frame should start with one. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results – in fact Khambatla really includes this just without calling it a VSA period.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambhatla in view of Pangam and further in view of Cha et al. (US 2013/0057763)
Regarding claim 11:
Kambhatla discloses some but not every element of the claim as follows:
Claim 11
Khambhatla
11. An application processor comprising:
a synchronous command storage configured to store a synchronous command;
Not disclosed by Khambhatla
a general command storage configured to store a general command;
Not disclosed by Khambhatla
a display control logic configured to determine whether configuration information is to be changed according to an application and to generate the synchronous command when the configuration information is to be changed;
Paragraph 14: "application can issue a request," paragraph 21: "mode change request"
an arbitration logic configured to arbitrate transmission of the synchronous command, the general command, and frame data;
Paragraph 74
a frame section setter configured to set frame sections for each of a video mode and a command mode;
Paragraph 26, but Khambhatla does not disclose "a video mode and a command mode"
a packaging logic configured to convert data output by the arbitration logic into a packet; and
Not disclosed by Khambhatla
a physical layer circuit configured to transmit the packet to a display driver integrated circuit.
Not disclosed by Khambhatla
Khambhatla does not disclose:
(A) “a synchronous command storage configured to store a synchronous command;
“a general command storage configured to store a general command.”
(B) “a frame section setter configured to set frame sections for each of a video mode and a command mode;
“a packaging logic configured to convert data output by the arbitration logic into a packet; and
“a physical layer circuit configured to transmit the packet to a display driver integrated circuit.”
Regarding (A):
Pangam discloses:
a synchronous command storage configured to store a synchronous command; a general command storage configured to store a general command (paragraph 62 -- the dynamic queue vs. the static queue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kambhatla the elements taught by Pangam.
The rationale is as follows:
Kambhatla and Pangam are directed to the same field of art. Pangam discloses that without this commands are not guaranteed to be processed promptly (e.g., paragraphs 40-41). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding (B):
Cha discloses:
a frame section setter configured to set frame sections for each of a video mode and a command mode (paragraph 105);
a packaging logic configured to convert data output by the arbitration logic into a packet (paragraph 98); and
a physical layer circuit configured to transmit the packet to a display driver integrated circuit (paragraph 98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Khambhatla in view of Pangam the elements taught by Cha.
The rationale is as follows:
Khambhatla, Pangam, and Cha are all directed to the same field of art.
Cha shows how to configure a frame and send it -- details that are not shown in Khambhatla, but necessary for the processor to function. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Regarding claim 12:
Khambhatla, etc., discloses:
wherein a synchronous command transmission acknowledgment signal corresponding to the synchronous command is received from the display driver integrated circuit (Khambhatla paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 13:
Khambhatla, etc., discloses:
wherein the frame data is transmitted to the display driver integrated circuit in response to the synchronous command transmission acknowledgment signal (Khambhatla paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 14:
Khambhatla, etc., discloses:
wherein the display control logic includes a configuration storage configured to store configuration information related to frame transmission (follows from, e.g., Khambhatla paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 15:
Khambhatla, etc., discloses:
wherein the configuration storage includes: a shadow storage configured to store configuration information related to transmission of subsequent frame data3; and an active storage configured to read the configuration information stored in the shadow storage in response to a shadow update request and to output the configuration information that is read to the arbitration logic and the frame section setter after a transmission acknowledgment of the synchronous command (e.g., Khambhatla paragraph 23 -- the dummy frame buffer is a shadow storage, and this is a refresh rate change which happens after a transmission acknowledgement of the synchronous command as discussed earlier).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pangam et al. (US 2015/0145875) in view of Khambhatla
Regarding claim 16:
Pangam discloses:
Claim 16
Pangam
16. (currently amended): A method of operating an application processor, the method comprising:
Paragraph 16
In response to a transmission request signal from a display driver integrated circuit, transmitting, from the application processor, a synchronous command that has priority over a general command and that is stored in a synchronous command storage separate from a general command storage that stores the general command, to a display driver integrated circuit in a command transmission allowable section in video mode; and
Paragraph 63: “tearing effect signal.” This is a transmission request signal because “in return, the operation system may send any new commands.” Paragraph 62 -- "commands which are sent to the dynamic queue 734." These are synchronous commands because they are executed with a new frame as per paragraph 65, where the command scheduler gives these commands priority as per paragraph 79.
Transmitting, from the application processor, the general command to the display driver integrated circuit after a transmission acknowledgment of the synchronous command is received.
The general commands are sent in priority order as per paragraph 79. Pangam does not disclose a transmission acknowledgement.
Pangam does not disclose:
"a transmission acknowledgement of the synchronous command is received"
Khambhatla discloses:
a transmission acknowledgement of the synchronous command is received (paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Pangam the elements taught by Khambhatla.
The rationale is as follows:
Pangam and Khambhatla are directed to the same field of art.
Khambhatla discloses that the driver should indicate completion to the processor before the next frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to mean waiting for a transmission acknowledgement.
Regarding claim 17:
Pangam in view of Khambhatla discloses:
determining whether configuration information is to be updated according to an application (Pangam paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 18:
Pangam in view of Khambhatla discloses:
notifying the display driver integrated circuit of an initiation of a transmission of the synchronous command and the transmission acknowledgment of the synchronous command (follows from the teaching of Moreira).
Regarding claim 19:
Pangam in view of Khambhatla discloses:
transmitting frame data to the display driver integrated circuit after the transmission acknowledgment of the synchronous command is received (follows from the teaching of Moreira).
Regarding claim 20:
Pangam in view of Khambhatla discloses:
wherein priority is given to the synchronous command by distinguishing properties of the synchronous command and properties of the general command (Pangam paragraph 62).
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 11-15 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Cha. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) are applied above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument (really starting page 8) is that Kambhatla does not disclose “any synchronous command transmission request signal.”
It should first be noted that this is not exactly what is claimed. The claim recites “a transmission request signal,” not a “synchronous command transmission request signal.” This is important because in applicant’s own disclosure where exactly the synchronous command transmission request signal is issued to and from is not all that clear.
Applicant cites paragraphs 26, 37-38, and 106 of the published application. Applicant does not specifically point to this request signal so it’s not entirely clear what applicant is referring to here. There’s no such request in paragraph 26. Paragraphs 37-38 do reference a synchronous command transmission request signal, but this signal is from the display control logic (Fig. 1: 110) to the arbitration logic (Fig. 1: 140). It is not a “transmission request signal from a display driver integrated circuit,” as claimed. The DDI circuit (Fig. 1: 200) does not appear to have any part in this signal.
Paragraph 106 does recite “a synchronous command transmission request of the DDI.” But this refers to earlier, and what is described earlier (paragraph 71) is the display control logic transmitting a synchronous command transmission request signal to the DDI, not from it. So it’s not entirely clear what signal applicant is referring to, and it might be helpful if applicant pointed to specifically what they are trying to claim here.
That said, there does appear to be support for what is claimed, i.e., “a transmission request signal.” This is because the commands appear to be issued at the beginning of a new frame, and the DDI issues a tearing effect signal to the application processor to indicate when it is the appropriate time to update (e.g., paragraph 81). This is not specific to a synchronous command but that’s not claimed.
All this aside, Kambhatla does appear to disclose “a transmission request signal.” In, e.g., Fig. 2: step 206, “display driver requests user mode application to change refresh rate.” This is a request for a refresh rate change command, which is the synchronous command of the claim. So Kambhatla meets the claim language as written.
Next (still page 8), applicant argues, in the case of claim 16+, that Pangram does not meet similar language in these claims. Applicant argues “Pangam’s dynamic queue stores commands that are sent when the operating system detects a new frame, without any specific request signal to trigger transmission. This is fundamentally different from the claimed ‘synchronous command transmission request signal’.”
Again, first, a synchronous command transmission request signal” is not claimed. Not is it clear it would be supported by applicant’s disclosure if it was. If applicant wants to claim this it would be helpful if they pointed to the signal in the disclosure they are referring to, as the language in the specification appears to use this language fairly interchangeably for commands sent within the application processor.
At best, as discussed above, applicant uses the tearing effect signal to signal when a new frame should be issued, which is pretty much the same thing Pangram discloses – e.g., paragraph 63, “the display driver…may send the tearing effect signal…in return, the operating system may send any new commands.” So Pangram also appears to meet this new claim language.
Next (starting page 10) applicant argues with the rejection of claims 16+. The argument here (page 11) is that Moreira does not teach that the general command is transmitted after a transmission acknowledgement of the synchronous command is received. Applicant argues that Moreira describes timing “based on thresholds” rather than an acknowledgement signal.
This threshold timing is more about sending another bandwidth change command, which in the language of the claim would be a synchronous command. But to make it clear that just a plain acknowledgement is known in the art, Khambhatla is now relied upon to teach this element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights