DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
For purposes of 35 USC 101 discussions, the Examiner finds the recited claims as eligible under 35 USC 101, that is although they may recite potential abstract ideas (e.g. the method of claim 20), they also recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is they recite elements that explicitly recite “computing” and “updating an image displayed on a display device” by ”processing image frame data” which at least 1) infer the techniques of the method are performed via some sort of processing device (e.g. computing = computer) and 2) integrate the techniques of the method into the computer graphics/displaying arts which provide improvements thereto by “processing image frame data” by only displaying “active areas” (see claim 20).
Priority
This application is a continuation of application no. 18/204,358 now U.S. Patent 12,131,721 which is further a continuation of application no. 17/791,396 now U.S. Patent 11,756,512 which is further a 371 of PCT/US2021/012678 filed 01/08/2021 which claims benefit of 62/958,627 filed 01/08/2020.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,512. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1 and 20, which are not explicitly recited in the combination of claims 1, 10 and 20, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The following is a claim comparison of claim 1 of the instant application and claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent 11,756,512:
Application No. 18/825,950 – Claim 1
U.S. Patent 11,756,512 – Claim 1
A display system for updating an image displayed on a display device, the display system comprising: display driver logic to:
A display system for updating an image displayed on a display device, said display device comprising pixels in a pixel array, said system comprising: (lines 1-3)
receive image frame data; and process the image frame data to: generate updated image data; and
a parser for receiving image frame data, wherein the parser extracts updated image data and commands including commands that identify portions of the display for updating; (lines 4-7)
compute a map identifying one or more active areas of the display device for updating to display at least a portion of the updated image data, the one or more active areas of the display device determined at least in part by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in the active areas.
a map consisting of a collection of data, wherein the collection of data includes at least one of coordinates or block locations of active areas of the display for updating, the active areas of the display being determined by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in areas of the display; (lines 8-13)
a loader for reading the commands, wherein the loader identifies the updated image data, and fetches the updated image data corresponding to the active areas of the display… (lines 16-20)
The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one of a memory or a buffer is a buffer and the updated image data stored in the buffer is transmitted to the display system, and wherein the display system comprises driver display logic for computing an occupancy map of active areas of the display from the updated image data. (claim 10)
As can be seen above, Patent claim 1 comprises all of the claim limitations of instant application claim 1 except the “display diver logic” limitation which can further be found in dependent Patent claim 10. Depend claim ultimately depends from claim 1, via claims 8 and 9. Therefore, it is the combination of these Patent claims that comprise all of the limitations of the claim 1. Note, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “compute a map..” limitation of the claim can be found basically in the limitations of at least “a map” and “a loader” limitations of the Patent since the term “compute” may simply be interpreted as “loading” the “map” which explicitly recites all of limitations of the claim. The instant application claim 1 is therefore broader in every aspect than the combination of Patent claims and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. In other words, although the conflicting claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in the combination of the Patent claims. Thus, the claim is rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
The following is a claim comparison of claim 20 of the instant application and claim 20 of U.S. Patent 11,756,512:
Application No. 18/825,950 – Claim 20
U.S. Patent 11,756,512 – Claim 20
A method of updating an image displayed on a display device, the method comprising:
A method of updating an image displayed on a display device, said display device comprising pixels in a pixel array, said method comprising: (lines 1-3)
receiving image frame data;
receiving image frame data in a display subsystem; (line 4)
processing the image frame data to generate updated image data; and
receiving the image frame data in a parser; extracting updated image data and associated commands from the image frame data, (lines 5-7)
computing a map identifying one or more active areas of the display device for updating to display at least a portion of the updated image data, the one or more active areas of the display device determined at least in part by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in the active areas of the display device.
computing a map consisting of a collection of data, wherein the collection of data includes at least one of coordinates or block locations of active areas of the display for updating, the active areas of the display being determined by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in areas of the display; (lines 8-13)
As can be seen above, Patent claim 20 comprises all of the claim limitations of instant application claim 20 thus, the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the Patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. In other words, although the conflicting claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in the Patent claim. Thus, the claim is rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,721. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-20, which are not explicitly recited in the combination of claims 1- 19, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The following is a claim comparison of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,131,721:
Application No. 18/825,950 – Claim 1
U.S. Patent 12,131,721 – Claim 1
A display system for updating an image displayed on a display device, the display system comprising:
A display system for updating an image displayed on a display device, the display system comprising: (lines 1-2)
display driver logic to: receive image frame data; and process the image frame data to: generate updated image data; and
display driver logic configured to: receive image frame data; and process the image frame data to: generate updated image data; and (lines 2-5)
compute a map identifying one or more active areas of the display device for updating to display at least a portion of the updated image data, the one or more active areas of the display device determined at least in part by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in the active areas.
compute a map identifying one or more active areas of the display device for updating, the one or more active areas of the display device determined at least in part by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in areas of the display device; and (lines 6-9)
As can be seen above, Patent claim 1 comprises all of the claim limitations of instant application claim 1 thus, the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the Patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. In other words, although the conflicting claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in the Patent claim. Thus, the claim is rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claim 2 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 2 of the Patent.
Claim 3 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 3 of the Patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 4 of the Patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 5 of the Patent.
Claim 6 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 6 of the Patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 13 of the Patent.
Claim 8 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 14 of the Patent.
Claim 9 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 15 of the Patent.
Claim 10 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 16 of the Patent.
Claim 11 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 17 of the Patent.
Claim 12 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 7 of the Patent.
Claim 13 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 8 of the Patent.
Claim 14 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 9 of the Patent.
Claim 15 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 10 of the Patent.
Claim 16 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 11 of the Patent.
Claim 17 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 12 of the Patent.
Claim 18 of the instant application can be found word-for-word in claim 18 of the Patent.
The following is a claim comparison of claim 19 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,131,721:
Application No. 18/825,950 – Claim 19
U.S. Patent 12,131,721 – Claim 1
A device comprising display driver logic performing operation comprising:
A display system for updating an image displayed on a display device, the display system comprising: (lines 1-2)
receiving image frame data; and processing the image frame data to: generating updated image data; and
display driver logic configured to: receive image frame data; and process the image frame data to: generate updated image data; and (lines 2-5)
computing a map identifying one or more active areas of the display device for updating to display at least a portion of the updated image data, the one or more active areas of the display device determined at least in part by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in the active areas.
compute a map identifying one or more active areas of the display device for updating, the one or more active areas of the display device determined at least in part by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in areas of the display device; and (lines 6-9)
As can be seen above, Patent claim 1 comprises all of the claim limitations of instant application claim 19 except the explicit terminology of “device” found in the preamble. Note, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “display system” of the Patent claim can be considered equivalent to the instant application’s “device” in particular since it comprises all other limitations of the claim. Thus, the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the Patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. In other words, although the conflicting claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in the Patent claim. Thus, the claim is rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
The following is a claim comparison of claim 20 of the instant application and claim 19 of U.S. Patent 12,131,721:
Application No. 18/825,950 – Claim 20
U.S. Patent 12,131,721 – Claim 19
A method of updating an image displayed on a display device, the method comprising:
A method of updating an image displayed on a display device, the method comprising: (lines 1-2)
receiving image frame data;
receiving image frame data; (line 3)
processing the image frame data to generate updated image data; and
processing the image frame data to generate updated image data; (lines 4-5)
computing a map identifying one or more active areas of the display device for updating to display at least a portion of the updated image data, the one or more active areas of the display device determined at least in part by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in the active areas of the display device.
computing a map identifying one or more active areas of the display device for updating, the one or more active areas of the display device determined at least in part by analyzing whether or not there are any non-black pixels in areas of the display device; and (lines 6-10)
As can be seen above, Patent claim 19 comprises all of the claim limitations of instant application claim 20 thus, the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the Patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. In other words, although the conflicting claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in the Patent claim. Thus, the claim is rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
3/10/26