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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/20/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because it may fail to further limit claim 6 from which it depends. Claim 7 recites limitations directed to one of two alternatives recited in claim 6. However, the other alternative makes the limitations of claim 7 moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0386600; hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of Elpida Memory, Japanese Patent JP 2012194686 (hereinafter referred to as Elpida).
As per claim 1: Lee teaches an image display device comprising:
a memory controller (Fig. 2A, 202) configured to output a first signal (paragraph 25, DQ) and a toggling second signal (paragraph 25, differential clock DQS);
a first memory configured to process the first signal based on the second signal (paragraph 25; DQ sampled; Fig. 2A, 204); and
a second memory (end of paragraph 92: “the WDCM function generates a data value indicating if the duty cycle is less than 50% (or a predefined range) or greater than 50% (or the predefined range), which is stored in memory”), wherein the memory controller is configured to:
perform a Shmoo test on the second signal (paragraph 130),
store data resulting from performing the Shmoo test in the second memory (end of paragraph 92: “the WDCM function generates a data value indicating if the duty cycle is less than 50% (or a predefined range) or greater than 50% (or the predefined range), which is stored in memory”), and
output the second signal based on the data stored in the second memory (Fig. 3B, 305).
Not explicitly disclosed is performing a Shmoo test based on the image display device being turned off, and outputting the second signal based on the image display device being turned on. However, Elpida in an analogous art teaches performing Shmoo testing when a device is off (paragraph 11 and Fig. 1, 1 representing a personal computer or laptop which necessarily comprises a screen), and resuming operations using an adjusted signal based on the device being turned on (paragraph 77, first sentence: system 1 is subsequently activated with the adjusted signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to turn off the device when performing the testing of Lee before resuming operation. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because testing could have been performed when the device was off or on as a matter of design choice, and would not have changed the principle of operation while producing expected results as explained by Elpida in paragraph 77.
As per claim 6: Elpida further teaches the image display device of claim 1, wherein the memory controller is configured to: determine whether a predetermined period elapses based on the image display device being turned off, and perform the Shmoo test on the second signal based on the elapse of the predetermined period or based on a predetermined condition (paragraph 77, test is performed after shut down so a time duration after shutdown is necessary).
As per claim 7:
Elpida teaches the other alternative of claim 6. See objection to claim 7 above.
As per claim 9:
Lee further teaches the image display device of claim 1, wherein the first signal is a command signal (paragraphs 25 and 90), and the second signal is a clock signal (paragraph 25).
As per claim 10: Lee further teaches the image display device of claim 1, wherein the first signal is a data signal (paragraph 25, DQ), and the second signal is a data strobe signal (paragraph 25, DQS).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Elpida in view of Butt et al (US Pat. 7,443,741; hereinafter referred to as Butt).
As per claim 2: Lee and Elpida teach the image display device of claim 1. Not explicitly disclosed is wherein the memory controller is configured to:
move a center of an edge of the second signal by a predetermined time from a preset point,
determine a number of movements of the center of the edge of the second signal at which processing of the first signal is successful, and
calculate a result value of the number of movements that cause the center of the edge of the second signal to be located at a center of a window of the first signal based on a minimum value and a maximum value of the numbers of movements.
However, Butt in an analogous art teaches a memory controller is configured to:
move a center of an edge of the second signal by a predetermined time from a preset point (Fig. 4, 144),
determine a number of movements of the center of the edge of the second signal at which processing of the first signal is successful (col. 8, lines 31-34), and
calculate a result value of the number of movements that cause the center of the edge of the second signal to be located at a center of a window of the first signal based on a minimum value and a maximum value of the numbers of movements (Fig. 5, 2-4-208; col. 8, lines 31-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the signals of Lee to be centered in the data eye as taught by Butt. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have provided an optimal desired timing relationship (39-42).
As per claim 3: Butt further teaches the image display device of claim 2, wherein the result value of the number of movements is a median value between the minimum value and the maximum value (col. 8, lines 31-34).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Elpida in view of Butt in view of McShea et al (US Pat. 8,970,276; hereinafter referred to as McShea).
As per claim 4: Lee et al teach the image display device of claim 2 above. Not explicitly disclosed is wherein the memory controller is configured to: perform the Shmoo test a plurality of times based on a preset number of tests, and store a mean value of a plurality of result values calculated based on the number of tests in the second memory as the data resulting from performing the Shmoo test. However, McShea in an analogous art teaches setting a mean value of N preset setup and hold times (col. 8, lines 40-43) as a Shmoo window (Fig. 3A, 310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the mean number of marginal setup and hold times to determine the valid data eye window. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because using the mathematical mean of a plurality of values was a known technique that would have provided predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Elpida in view of Song (US Pat. 6,275,221).
As per claim 5: Lee teaches the image display device of claim 1, wherein the memory controller, the first memory, and the second memory are disposed on a single main board (Fig. 2, 200). Not explicitly disclosed is based on the image display device being turned off, a supply of power to components of the image display device other than the main board is cut off. However, Song in an analogous art teaches an image display device power savings mode in which power to components other than the main board (Fig. 2, 22a and 21b) is cut off (Fig. 2, 22e; col. 7, lines 7-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to cut off power to the components of the display device other than the main board. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have enabled a power savings mode (col. 7, lines 12-15).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Elpida in view of Lu et al (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0366995; hereinafter referred to as Lu).
As per claim 8: Lee et al teach the image display device of claim 1. Not explicitly disclosed is wherein the second memory is an embedded multimedia controller (eMMC). However, Lu in an analogous art teaches an embedded multimedia controller (paragraph 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an eMMC as the memory of Lee. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because Lu teaches that an eMMC is one of a well-known type of storage device (paragraph 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art are generally directed to skew detection and correction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, April Blair can be reached at 571-270-1014. 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.
/STEVE N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111