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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al (US 2018/0204303; hereinafter Bae).
• Regarding claims 1, 12, 18, and 21, Bae discloses a display system, image buffer, and method (figure 2), comprising:
a segment analyzer configured to perform an analysis of image data representing an image to be displayed during a time period, the analysis distinguishing: a first portion of the image data that corresponds to an active segment of the image containing non-zero content, from a second portion of the image data that corresponds to an empty segment of the image without non-zero content (element 100 in figure 2 and ¶s 146-151; where element 100 must perform some type of processing in order to distinguish between the pixels to be displayed and the pixels to be “output in black” or “turned off”);
a segment buffer configured to store, in accordance with a segment map based on the analysis, the first portion of the image data (element 110 in figure 2 and ¶s 146-151); and
a set of pixel drivers configured to use the segment map and the first portion of the image data stored in the segment buffer to cause a set of pixels to display the image during the time period by driving a first subset of the set of pixels, the first subset associated with the active segment, and without driving a second subset of the set of pixels, the second subset associated with the empty segment (inherent in ¶s 149 and 151; see also elements 170a and 180a in figure 3A and ¶s 94 and 95).
• Regarding claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19, Bae discloses everything claimed, as applied to claims 1, 12, and 18. Additionally, Aoki discloses where:
Claims 2, 13, & 19: the image contains a plurality of rows (inherent in the two-dimensional display of figure 6A; see also ¶ 75); and
the active segment and the empty segment of the image each correspond to less than an entire row of the plurality of rows (any row containing the text of element 210a in figure 6A).
Claim 3: the image contains a plurality of rows (inherent in the two-dimensional display of figure 6A; see also ¶ 75);
the active segment corresponds to a first entire row of the plurality of rows (element 202a in figure 6A); and
the empty segment corresponds to a second entire row of the plurality of rows (element S01a in figure 6A).
Claims 4 & 14: the image includes a red image component, a green image component, and a blue image component (¶ 59); and
the analysis is a color-agnostic analysis that distinguishes the first portion of the image data from the second portion of the image data based on non-zero content being contained in any of the red image component, the green image component, or the blue image component for the active segment (at least suggested by ¶s 47 and 146-151).
Claim 6: a subset of the set of pixel drivers corresponding to the second subset of the set of pixels is configured to remain in an inactive state during the time period when the set of pixels displays the image (¶s 149 and 151).
Claims 7 & 16: the set of pixel drivers causes the set of pixels to display the image during the time period without driving the second subset of the set of pixels and further without fetching the second portion of the image data from the segment buffer (¶s 146-151).
Claims 8 & 17: the segment buffer is configured to store the first portion of the image data without also storing the second portion of the image data (at least suggested by ¶s 106 and 107).
Claim 9: the segment buffer includes memory sufficient to store an entirety of the image data representing the image (¶ 59); and
the segment map includes a first single-bit entry for the active segment and a second single-bit entry for the empty segment (at least suggested by ¶ 47).
Claim 11: implemented as a heads-up display system configured to pass through a view of a surrounding environment for the second subset of the set of pixels not driven during the time period (¶ 37).
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.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae, in view of Yoo et al (US 2017/0308226; hereinafter Yoo).
• Regarding claim 10, Bae discloses everything claimed, as applied to claim 1. However, Bae fails to disclose the additional details of the display system.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoo discloses where:
Claim 10: the segment buffer lacks memory sufficient to store an entirety of the image data representing the image (element 232 in figure 2 and ¶ 71); and
the segment map includes a first multi-bit entry for the active segment and a second multi-bit entry for the empty segment (at least suggested by ¶ 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Bae according to the teachings of Yoo, for the purpose of storing partial images for use when an always-on display is used (¶ 157).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 15, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in claims 5, 15, and 20, where “the segment map includes a red segment map component based on the color-aware analysis for the red image component, a green segment map component based on the color-aware analysis for the green image component, and a blue segment map component based on the color-aware analysis for the blue image component”, in combination with all the remaining limitations in each claim and all the limitations in the claim from which each depends.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Kim et al (US 2022/0013053) disclose a display which displays information in black and white in an always-on display mode (see at least ¶ 110).
b. Yabuuchi (US 2004/0085303) discloses a display in which only display elements required to display a partial image are driven (see at least ¶ 14).
c. Ravichandran et al (US 2006/0146042) disclose a display in which “the display controller 113 may send only data for a fraction of the screen and the display 350 may fill in the rest of the areas with black (pixels turned off)” (see at least ¶ 22).
d. Aoki et al (US 2016/0093255) disclose a display which, “ehen there is a light-emitting diode LD whose luminance is determined as zero by the image analysis processor 24, the light source driver 22 does not turn the light-emitting diode LD on” (see at least ¶ 50).
Closing Remarks/Comments
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN DANIELSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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.
/NATHAN DANIELSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622