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 .
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, 3-5, 9, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitsu (JP2007241317; disclosed in IDS – applicant’s translation relied upon) in view of Ren et al. (US 2015/0346987) and further in view of Koo et al. (US 2020/0175930).
Regarding claim 1:
Fujitsu discloses some but not every element of the claim as follows:
Claim 1
Fujitsu
1. (Currently Amended) A display device, adjusting a response time of liquid crystals based on an ambient temperature to prevent display anomalies, the display device comprising a first operating mode and a second operating mode, the display device comprising:
Abstract: full color display and monochromatic display
a temperature sensor for detecting [[an]] the ambient temperature;
Page 18: “temperature sensor 40,” where this is “the temperature of the liquid crystal panel”
a signal processor for determining whether the ambient temperature is within a predefined temperature range, wherein the predefined temperature range is from a lower limit of -10 degrees Celsius to an upper limit of 40 degrees Celsius; and
Page 18: “current temperature falls below 0,” where Fujitsu does not disclose a range from -10 to 40 degrees
a display panel;
wherein when the ambient temperature is within the predefined temperature range, the display device operates in the first working mode, and the display panel is in color display to display in color;
Page 18: “when the temperature becomes 0 or higher…switching from single color display to full cover display”
when the ambient temperature is below the lower limit of exceeds the predefined temperature range or above the upper limit of the predefined temperature range, the display device operates in the second operating mode, and the display panel is in monochrome display to display in monochrome or in grayscale display to display in monochrome grayscale,
Page 18: “current temperature falls below 0 C, the full color display is changed to the single color display,” where Fujitsu does not disclose that it also does this when it is above an upper limit of a range.
wherein when the ambient temperature changes, the display device switches between the first operating mode and the second operating mode during blank periods between adjacent frames.
Fujitsu does not discuss a “blank period between adjacent frames”
Therefore Fujitsu does not disclose:
(A) that it detects “the ambient temperature”
(B) the predefined temperature range is from a lower limit of -10 degrees Celsius to an upper limit of 40 degrees Celsius”
(C) that operates in the second operating mode when the temperature is “above the upper limit of the predefined temperature range,” or
(D) “wherein when the ambient temperature changes, the display device switches between the first operating mode and the second operating mode during blank periods between adjacent frames.”
Regarding (A)-(C):
Ren discloses:
detecting the ambient temperature (paragraph 28);
a predefined temperature range with a lower limit and an upper limit (paragraph 187);
operating in different modes depending on whether it is within this range, or below or above it (paragraphs 188-189).
It would have been obvious to include in Fujitsu the elements taught by Ren.
The rationale is as follows:
Fujitsu and Ren are directed to the same field of art.
Ren discloses a very similar situation to Fujitsu but with correction not just to low but also high temperatures. This can improve the display in these temperatures. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Fujitsu in view of Ren does not disclose:
wherein the predefined temperature range is from -10 degrees Celsius to 40 degrees Celsius.
But this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed.
The rationale is as follows:
Ren gives a variety of different ranges (paragraph 187).
The appropriate range can easily be determined in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation. Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the relationships set forth in this claim are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Therefore one of ordinary skill could have chosen this particular range, as suggested by Ren, with predictable results.
Regarding (D):
Note that Fujitsu appears to disclose this (this follows from, e.g., Fujitsu page 13: “the light emission timing and light emission color of the backlight 22 are controlled in synchronization with the data write / erase scan of the liquid crystal panning” – this is a blank period between displaying), but because Fujitsu doesn’t use the term “blank period between adjacent frames” Koo is relied upon.
Koo discloses:
the display device switches between the first operating mode and the second operating mode during blank periods between adjacent frames (paragraph 51: “reflect the luminance compensation value…on the luminance of the back light unit from a start point BT of a blank period”).
It would have been obvious to include in Fujitsu in view of Ren wherein when the ambient temperature changes, the display device switches between the first operating mode and the second operating mode during blank periods between adjacent frames, as suggested by Koo.
The rationale is as follows:
Fujitsu, Ren, and Koo are directed to the same field of art.
Fujitsu in view of Ren already switches when the ambient temperature changes, but is not clear on where in the frame this switch happens. Koo discloses a blank period where changes take place. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 3:
Fujitsu, etc., discloses:
a backlight module (e.g., Fujitsu page 19: “backlight 22”);
wherein in the first operating mode, a backlight driving mode of the backlight module is a color mode (e.g., Fujitsu page 13, “a backlight 22 capable of time-division light emission of red, green and blue”); in the second operating mode, the backlight driving mode of the backlight module is a monochrome mode or a grayscale mode (e.g., Fujitsu page 19, “only the green LED is caused to emit light”).
Regarding claim 4:
Fujitsu, etc., discloses:
wherein in the color mode, the backlight module comprises a plurality of backlight activation phases within a frame, each of the backlight activation phases activating a light source of a different color, with different colors of light sources displayed in different backlight activation phases (e.g., Fujitsu page 13, “a backlight 22 capable of time-division light emission of red, green and blue”).
Regarding claim 5:
Fujitsu, etc., discloses:
wherein in the monochrome display or the grayscale display, the backlight module comprises a single backlight activation phase within a frame, and a light source of a single color is activated during the backlight activation phase (e.g., Fujitsu page 19, “only the green LED is caused to emit light”).
Regarding claims 11 and 13-15:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitsu in view of Ren and further in view of Koo, and further in view of Border et al. (US 2013/0278631)
Regarding claim 6:
Fujitsu, etc., discloses a display device as discussed above.
Fujitsu, etc., does not disclose:
“further comprising an environmental color sensor for detecting an ambient color, wherein a backlight color of the backlight module is different from the ambient color.”
Border discloses:
further comprising an environmental color sensor for detecting an ambient color (paragraph 462: “embedded sensor”), wherein a backlight color of the backlight module is different from the ambient color (paragraph 462: “modifying a color curve/palatte to be more or less visible relative to the ambient environment”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Fujitsu, etc., the elements taught by Border.
The rationale is as follows:
Fujitsu, etc., and Border are directed to the same field of art.
Border discloses a number of improvements that can be made with an ambient sensor to improve the display. This is a known improvement one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8:
Fujitsu, etc., discloses:
wherein the backlight module comprises a single backlight activation phase within a frame, and during the backlight activation phase, activates a light source of a color different from the ambient color. (this follows from the combination – a single activation was taught by Fujitsu as discussed above, and light different than ambient taught by Border as discussed above).
Regarding claim 10:
(Note this claim is not dependent on claim 6 but the same teaching of Border is used here).
Fujitsu, etc., discloses:
further comprising an optical sensor for detecting ambient brightness, wherein the display device adjusts backlight brightness of the backlight module based on the ambient brightness (Border paragraph 462 as discussed above).
Regarding claims 16, 18, and 20:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitsu in view of Ren, Koo, and Border, and further in view of Bruning et al. (US 2002/0070914)
Regarding claim 7:
Fujitsu, etc., discloses a display device as discussed above.
Funitsu, etc., discloses:
herein the backlight module comprises a plurality of backlight activation phases within a frame, each of the backlight activation phases activating a light source of a different color, with different colors of light sources displayed in different backlight activation phases (e.g., Fujitsu Fig. 4).
Fujitsu in view of Border does not disclose:
“durations of at least two of the backlight activation phases are unequal.”
Bruning discloses:
durations of at least two of the backlight activation phases are unequal (paragraph 10: “for a longer duration”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Fujitsu in view of Border the elements taught by Bruning.
The rationale is as follows:
Fujitsu, etrc., and Bruning are directed to the same field of art.
Border already discloses the color might be changed based on the ambient light (paragraph 462). Bruning shows this can be done by changing the duration of the individual color pulses. This allows it to implement the teaching of Border. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Regarding claim 17:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument (page 7) is directed to the “temperature range.” Applicant argues that what Fujitsu discloses is not a “range.” The Examiner does not agree with this, but it doesn’t matter, because the claim language now specifies a lower and upper limit to this range, and Ren has been relied upon to teach this. Ren certainly teaches a range as applicant defines it.
Applicant next (starting the bottom of page 7) argues Fujitsu doesn’t disclose changing the mode during a blank period between frames. It’s true that Fujitsu doesn’t explicitly show this. Koo has now been relied upon for this element.
Applicant next (page 8) argues that Fujitsu doesn’t detect an “ambient temperature” as defined by the claim. This is shown in Ren as discussed above.
Applicant next (really starting on page 9) argues with the motivation for including the teaching of Ren. This argument is now applicable to all the claims since Ren is now relied upon for the independent claims.
The first argument here is that Ren’s discussion of temperature ranges is general and not specifically for overcoming low-temperature liquid crystal response issues.
This part of the claim – “to prevent display anomalies” – is just a statement of intended use. Only the elements claimed and their functions have patentable weight, and the combination of the prior art discloses all of these. But on top of that it is clear that the purpose of Ren is to improve the display, so it would meet it.
So the question is if the teaching of Ren is applicable to Fujitsu, even though Ren is more general and Fujitsu discussed a specific problem of responsiveness at low temperatures. But why not? Fujitsu is directed to improving the display and in particular its functioning in a specific temperature range, and so is Ren. It seems reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would find Ren’s teaching’s applicable. Just because Ren is directed to a wider variety of circumstances doesn’t make it applicable.
As for the specific temperature range, picking this specific range is well within the ordinary level of skill in the art. The only reason it would not be obvious were if there were so unexpected result at this range, but this temperature-dependent behavior seems quite well known in the art.
Next (page 10) applicant argues that Border is directed to a completely different technical problem. Yes, Border is a head mounted display, but it is still an LCD display, so it seems quite reasonable to think its teaching would be applicable. Applicant’s argument here is that it solves a different problem than Fujitsu solves, but that doesn’t matter. It can be a separate improvement, solving a different problem, and still be obvious to include it in order to address that problem.
Next (page 11) applicant argues that Bruning does not apply its teaching to the specific problem of adjusting color based on temperature. It doesn’t need to. Fujitsu, etc., already adjust the color based on temperature. Bruning just teaches a way the color can be adjusted. This is clearly applicable.
Overall applicant appears to believe that every piece of prior art must disclose the same problem. That is simply not true. They can solve different problems as long as it is obvious to use these solutions together. In this case there is ample motivation for doing this in the references themselves.
All the claimed invention consists of is applying a method that is already present in Fujitsu in one temperature range (below 0) to a different one. That it changes during a blank period between frames is essentially the way every display device performs any kind of mode switching. Then, at the end, adding in adding a second kind of display correction based on the color. All this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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