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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an instructive operation member by means of which an operation is performed on the display panel has approached a position within a prescribed distance from the display surface of the display panel” in claim 2, described in specification as “such as a finger or a touch pen, approaching the display panel DP” in paragraph [0025].
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control unit” in claim 1, the corresponding structure is defined in specification Figure 2 and paragraph [0018-0019] “FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram of a configuration of the display device 100 in accordance with Embodiment 1…… The display device 100 includes a display unit DU, a displacing mechanism MM, the control unit CT”;
“displacement control unit” in claim 1, the corresponding structure is defined in specification Figure 2 and paragraph [0018-0019] “FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram of a configuration of the display device 100 in accordance with Embodiment 1…… The display device 100 includes a display unit DU, a displacing mechanism MM, the control unit CT …… The control unit CT includes the processing unit PU and a displacement control unit MC.”;
“degradation measuring unit” in claim 13, the corresponding structure is defined in specification Figure 19 and paragraph [0080] “Referring to FIG. 19, the display device 100 in accordance with the present embodiment differs from the display device 100 in accordance with the aforementioned embodiment in that the for additionally includes a degradation measuring unit DM for measuring the degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements SL.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 2 recites “the display panel is so soft as to be rolled up”, it is unclear how soft the display panel needs to be, for the purpose of examination, it reads as “the display panel is soft”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (IDS JP 2019204063 A), hereinafter as Ito. The original and a machine translation of Ito are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, Ito teaches A control unit for a display device (Ito teaches the display control unit 32 as the control unit, paragraph [0019] “The display unit 3, for example as shown in Figure 2, comprises a display unit 31 that displays an image and a display control unit 32 that controls the display position of the image displayed on the display unit 31.”) including a display panel including a plurality of self-luminous elements (Ito paragraph [0065] “the display unit 31 can be any panel made of self-luminous elements, such as a plasma display panel or a field emission display panel, or any other panel made of self-luminous elements.”), the control unit comprising a displacement control unit configured to, while causing to displace a position in the display panel where an image is displayed on the display panel (Ito teaches the display control unit 32 as the displacement control unit, paragraph [0023] “The display control unit 32 receives signals related to the user's gaze information obtained by the gaze monitoring unit 4, as shown in Figure 2, and performs wobbling to change the display position of the image displayed on the display unit 31 as needed.”), stop the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel when a viewing signal is received that indicates that a viewer is likely to be watching a display surface of the display panel (Ito paragraph [0038-0040] “In step S303, a determination is made as to whether or not the user 6 is looking at the display
unit 31, based on the gaze information of the user 6 obtained by the gaze monitoring unit 4……. if it is determined that user 6 is looking at the display unit 31, the display position of the image is not changed (wobbling), preventing user 6 from making a mistake in judgment due to a decrease in the visibility of the image.”).
Ito and the current applications are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. In various embodiments, Ito teaches a method of changing the position of image based on user interaction to improve rendering effect (Ito paragraph [0011] “On the other hand, when the user is looking at the display unit, the display position of the image on the display unit is not changed to prevent a decrease in the visibility of the image. Therefore, even in applications where the user and the display unit are kept at a predetermined distance, this video display device achieves both reduced burn-in and suppression of reduced image visibility due to wobbling.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of various embodiments of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 19, Ito teaches A method of controlling a display device (Ito paragraph [0018] “The video display device 1 of this embodiment is configured to change the display position of the video displayed on the display unit 31 of the display device 3 based on information regarding the user's gaze (hereinafter referred to as "gaze information") obtained by the gaze monitoring unit 4.”) including a display panel including a plurality of self-luminous elements (Ito paragraph [0065] “the display unit 31 can be any panel made of self-luminous elements, such as a plasma display panel or a field emission display panel, or any other panel made of self-luminous elements.”); the method comprising: a step of displacing a position in a display panel where an image is displayed on the display panel (Ito paragraph [0023] “The display control unit 32 receives signals related to the user's gaze information obtained by the gaze monitoring unit 4, as shown in Figure 2, and performs wobbling to change the display position of the image displayed on the display unit 31 as needed.”); and a step of, while displacing the position, stopping the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel when a viewing signal is received that indicates that a viewer is likely to be watching a display surface of the display panel (Ito paragraph [0038-0040] “In step S303, a determination is made as to whether or not the user 6 is looking at the display unit 31, based on the gaze information of the user 6 obtained by the gaze monitoring unit 4……. if it is determined that user 6 is looking at the display unit 31, the display position of the image is not changed (wobbling), preventing user 6 from making a mistake in judgment due to a decrease in the visibility of the image.”).
Ito and the current applications are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. In various embodiments, Ito teaches a method of changing the position of image based on user interaction to improve rendering effect (Ito paragraph [0011] “On the other hand, when the user is looking at the display unit, the display position of the image on the display unit is not changed to prevent a decrease in the visibility of the image. Therefore, even in applications where the user and the display unit are kept at a predetermined distance, this video display device achieves both reduced burn-in and suppression of reduced image visibility due to wobbling.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of various embodiments of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (IDS JP 2019204063 A), hereinafter as Ito, in view of Kato et al. (IDS JP 2006293149 A), hereinafter as Kato. The original and a machine translation of Ito and Kato are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 2, Ito teaches The control unit for the display device according to claim 1, but is not relied on for the below claim language wherein the viewing signal indicates that either a finger of the viewer or an instructive operation member by means of which an operation is performed on the display panel has approached a position within a prescribed distance from the display surface of the display panel. Kato teaches wherein the viewing signal indicates that either a finger of the viewer or an instructive operation member by means of which an operation is performed on the display panel has approached a position within a prescribed distance from the display surface of the display panel (Kato paragraph [0021] “Touch panel 20 has touch sensors distributed on one surface, and each touch sensor can sense that the tip of a predetermined stylus pen has come into contact.”, paragraph [0047] “In step S230, the burn-in prevention unit M4 determines whether the stylus pen 30 has touched the touch panel 20 via the touch input unit M8. Then, until the tip of the stylus pen 30 comes into contact with the touch panel 20, the movement of the drawn image is continued in step S220. On the other hand, when the tip of the stylus pen 30 comes into contact with the touch panel 20, the movement of the drawn image is stopped in step S240.”).
Ito and Kato are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Kato teaches using a touch sensor to detect user interaction to improve rendering effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kato with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 3, Ito in view of Kato teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 2, and further teach wherein the display device includes a touch sensor on a display surface side of the display panel (Kato paragraph [0021] “FIG. 2 shows how the touch panel 20 is attached to the PDP panel 13. The touch panel 20 is formed in a rectangular plate shape having substantially the same outer shape as the PDP panel 13 and is attached to the front surface or the back surface of the PDP panel 13. Touch panel 20 has touch sensors distributed on one surface, and each touch sensor can sense that the tip of a predetermined stylus pen has come into contact.”).
Ito and Kato are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Kato teaches using a touch sensor to detect user interaction to improve rendering effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kato with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 4, Ito in view of Kato teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 3, and further teach wherein the touch sensor is integrated into the display panel (Kato paragraph [0021] “The touch panel 20 is formed in a rectangular plate shape having substantially the same outer shape as the PDP panel 13 and is attached to the front surface or the back surface of the PDP panel 13. Touch panel 20 has touch sensors distributed on one surface …… a sensor coil is distributed over one surface, and an electromagnetic induction type that detects the tip of the stylus pen by detecting an induced current in the sensor coil is employed.”).
Ito and Kato are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Kato teaches using a touch sensor to detect user interaction to improve rendering effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kato with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 5, Ito in view of Kato teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 3, and further teach wherein the control unit receives the viewing signal from the touch sensor (Kato paragraph [0028] “a magnetic field can be formed near the tip of the stylus pen 30, which can induce a current in the sensor coils distributed on the touch panel 20. Therefore, the touch panel 20 can detect which part of the touch panel 20 the tip of the stylus pen 30 has come into contact with, based on the induced current in each sensor coil.”).
Ito and Kato are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Kato teaches using a touch sensor to detect user interaction to improve rendering effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kato with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 6, Ito in view of Kato teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 2, and further teach wherein the viewing signal indicates that a face of the viewer is facing the display panel (Ito paragraph [0037] “In step S302, for example, the gaze monitoring unit 4 sequentially acquires facial images of user 6 and analyzes user 6's gaze based on the facial images.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Ito in view of Kato teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 2, and further teach wherein the display device includes a sensor that transmits the viewing signal to the displacement control unit (Kato teaches the drawing input signal as the viewing signal, paragraph [0047] “the burn-in prevention unit M4 determines via the touch input unit M8 whether the stylus pen 30 has made contact with the touch panel 20.”, paragraph [0033] “the touch input unit M8 monitors the detection status on the touch panel 20 and can detect when the tip of the stylus pen 30 comes into contact with the touch panel 20. The drawing input signal is a signal generated in accordance with the movement of the tip of the stylus pen 30 on the touch panel 20.”).
Ito and Kato are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Kato teaches using a touch sensor to detect user interaction to improve rendering effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kato with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (IDS JP 2019204063 A), hereinafter as Ito, in view of Kato et al. (IDS JP 2006293149 A), hereinafter as Kato, further in view of Aonuma et al. (IDS JP 2020173315 A), hereinafter as Aonuma. The original and a machine translation of Ito, Kato and Aonuma are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 8, Ito in view of Kato teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 2, but are not relied on for the below claim language wherein the display surface of the display panel is planar. Aonuma teaches wherein the display surface of the display panel is planar (Aonuma paragraph [0054] “the base 4 may be substantially flat, as shown in Figure 7, for example. In this case, the display panel 1 is used while being held in a flat shape.”, paragraph [0057] “the display panel 1 does not necessarily have to be bendable, and may be a flat glass substrate on which OLEDs and TFTs are formed.”).
Ito, Kato and Aonuma are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Aonuma teaches rotating a planar or curved display panel to improve rendering effect (Aonuma paragraph [0009] “this display device suppresses variations in cumulative drive time between multiple pixels, resulting in a more even distribution and reduction of image burn-in compared to conventional designs, and also prevents users from experiencing any discomfort during image transitions.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aonuma with the method of Ito and Kato to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 9, Ito in view of Kato teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 2, but are not relied on for the below claim language wherein the display surface of the display panel is curved. Aonuma teaches wherein the display surface of the display panel is curved (Aonuma paragraph [0016] “The display panel 1 may be an OLED glass in which an OLED and a TFT are formed on a glass substrate that can be bent with a predetermined curvature.”, paragraph [0054] “In the first embodiment described above, the base 4 is cylindrical and the display panel 1 is used in a curved shape that follows the outer surface of the base 4.”)
Ito, Kato and Aonuma are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Aonuma teaches rotating a planar or curved display panel to improve rendering effect (Aonuma paragraph [0009] “this display device suppresses variations in cumulative drive time between multiple pixels, resulting in a more even distribution and reduction of image burn-in compared to conventional designs, and also prevents users from experiencing any discomfort during image transitions.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aonuma with the method of Ito and Kato to improve rendering effect.
Claim(s) 10-13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (IDS JP 2019204063 A), hereinafter as Ito, in view of Aonuma et al. (IDS JP 2020173315 A), hereinafter as Aonuma. The original and a machine translation of Ito and Aonuma are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 10, Ito teaches The control unit for the display device according to claim 1, but is not relied on for the below claim language wherein the display device includes a displacing mechanism that displaces the display panel in a direction along the display surface, and the displacement control unit controls the displacing mechanism to displace the display panel in a direction opposite a displacement direction of the position of the image in the display panel. Aonuma teaches wherein the display device includes a displacing mechanism that displaces the display panel in a direction along the display surface (Aonuma paragraph [0040] “the panel movement unit 3, which has received a movement signal, rotates by a predetermined amount in a predetermined direction, for example, thereby moving the display panel 1 by a predetermined amount in a predetermined direction.”), and the displacement control unit controls the displacing mechanism to displace the display panel in a direction opposite a displacement direction of the position of the image in the display panel (Aonuma paragraph [0069] “After a movement signal is output from the movement instruction unit 22, the panel movement unit 3 moves the display panel 1 in the opposite direction to the movement direction by an amount equal to the amount of movement of the image.”).
Ito and Aonuma are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Aonuma teaches rotating a planar or curved display panel to improve rendering effect (Aonuma paragraph [0009] “this display device suppresses variations in cumulative drive time between multiple pixels, resulting in a more even distribution and reduction of image burn-in compared to conventional designs, and also prevents users from experiencing any discomfort during image transitions.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aonuma with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 11, Ito in view of Aonuma teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 10, and further teach wherein the display panel is so soft as to be rolled up (Aonuma paragraph [0016] “The display panel 1 is, for example, an OLED film made of any flexible resin material, having a plurality of pixels (not shown) which are composed of OLEDs as self-luminous elements and
thin-film transistors (TFTs) for driving them.”), and the displacing mechanism includes a mechanism that rolls up the display panel (Aonuma paragraph [0021] “the display panel 1 is held in a curved shape on the base 4, as shown in Figure 3, for example, and moves together with the base 4 when the base 4 is rotated by the panel moving part 3.”).
Ito and Aonuma are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Aonuma teaches rotating a planar or curved display panel to improve rendering effect (Aonuma paragraph [0009] “this display device suppresses variations in cumulative drive time between multiple pixels, resulting in a more even distribution and reduction of image burn-in compared to conventional designs, and also prevents users from experiencing any discomfort during image transitions.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aonuma with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 12, Ito in view of Aonuma teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 10, and further teach wherein the display panel forms a loop (Aonuma Figure 3, paragraph [0013] “Figure 3 shows the display panel 1, which is mounted on a roughly cylindrical base 4 (described later), as viewed from the axial direction passing through the center of the circle formed by the outer surface of the base 4.”), and the displacing mechanism includes a rotation mechanism that rotates the display panel along the loop of the display panel (Aonuma paragraph [0024] “The panel movement unit 3 can rotate in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, and rotates by a predetermined amount when a predetermined signal is output from the movement control unit 2. The rotation amount and direction of the panel movement unit 3 are associated with the position of the base 4 (i.e., the position of the display panel 1), and the rotation amount and direction are controlled by the movement control unit 2, and are used for position control of the display panel 1.”).
Ito and Aonuma are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Aonuma teaches rotating a planar or curved display panel to improve rendering effect (Aonuma paragraph [0009] “this display device suppresses variations in cumulative drive time between multiple pixels, resulting in a more even distribution and reduction of image burn-in compared to conventional designs, and also prevents users from experiencing any discomfort during image transitions.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aonuma with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 13, Ito teaches The control unit for the display device according to claim 1, but is not relied on for the below claim language wherein a degradation measuring unit is included that measures a degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements, and the displacement control unit controls the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel in accordance with the degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements. Aonuma teaches wherein a degradation measuring unit is included that measures a degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements, and the displacement control unit controls the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel in accordance with the degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements (Aonuma paragraph [0087] “the motion control unit 2 may be configured to have a degradation estimation unit 28 that estimates the amount of degradation of each pixel, as shown in Figures 13 to 15…… the movement determination unit 21 is configured to output a movement signal to move the display panel 1, the image, or both, when it satisfies a movement start condition based on the estimated degradation amount of each pixel. The movement determination unit 21 outputs a movement signal, for example, when the amount of deterioration estimated by the deterioration estimation unit 28 is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold”).
Ito and Aonuma are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Aonuma teaches rotating a planar or curved display panel to improve rendering effect (Aonuma paragraph [0009] “this display device suppresses variations in cumulative drive time between multiple pixels, resulting in a more even distribution and reduction of image burn-in compared to conventional designs, and also prevents users from experiencing any discomfort during image transitions.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aonuma with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 16, Ito teaches The control unit for the display device according to claim 1, but is not relied on for the below claim language wherein the displacement control unit receives a signal indicating a temperature of the display panel and controls the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel based on the signal indicating the temperature. Aonuma teaches wherein the displacement control unit receives a signal indicating a temperature of the display panel and controls the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel based on the signal indicating the temperature (Aonuma teaches a degradation estimation based on temperature, further teaches the movement determination unit to move the position of image, paragraph [0092] “the estimation of degradation due to the effect of electrical current was explained, but degradation due to temperature can also be calculated using a similar approach, and the degradation estimation unit 28 may, if necessary, estimate the amount of degradation due to temperature in addition to the effect of electrical current.”, paragraph [0087] “the motion control unit 2 may be configured to have a degradation estimation unit 28 that estimates the amount of degradation of each pixel, as shown in Figures 13 to 15…… the movement determination unit 21 is configured to output a movement signal to move the display panel 1, the image, or both, when it satisfies a movement start condition based on the estimated degradation amount of each pixel.”).
Ito and Aonuma are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Aonuma teaches rotating a planar or curved display panel to improve rendering effect (Aonuma paragraph [0009] “this display device suppresses variations in cumulative drive time between multiple pixels, resulting in a more even distribution and reduction of image burn-in compared to conventional designs, and also prevents users from experiencing any discomfort during image transitions.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aonuma with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 18, Ito teaches A display device comprising: the display panel; and the control unit for the display device (Ito teaches the display unit 31 as the display panel, the display control unit 32 as the control unit, paragraph [0019] “The display unit 3, for example as shown in Figure 2, comprises a display unit 31 that displays an image and a display control unit 32 that controls the display position of the image displayed on the display unit 31.”) according to claim 13 (Please see claim 13 for the detailed rejection rational).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (IDS JP 2019204063 A), hereinafter as Ito, in view of Aonuma et al. (IDS JP 2020173315 A), hereinafter as Aonuma, further in view of Seo et al. (IDS US 20210097912 A1), hereinafter as Seo. The original and a machine translation of Ito and Aonuma are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 14, Ito in view of Aonuma teach The control unit for the display device according to claim 13, but are not relied on for the below claim language wherein the displacement control unit controls the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel to cause the display panel to display the image in a region where the degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements is lower than in another region.
Seo teaches wherein the displacement control unit controls the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel to cause the display panel to display the image in a region where the degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements is lower than in another region (Seo paragraph [0120] “ Based on the accumulated counted values of the reference coordinates RC1 to RC6, degree of stress, deterioration deviation, and the like of the pixel unit 100 may be additionally calculated …… the image shifter 270′ may control the shift of the first image IM1 based on the accumulated counted values such that the first image IM1 is displayed for a longer time or more frequently in an area where the deterioration is the least significant.”).
Ito, Aonuma and Seo are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Seo teaches movement of image in a low degradation area to improve rendering effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Seo with the method of Ito and Aonuma to improve rendering effect.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (IDS JP 2019204063 A), hereinafter as Ito, in view of Aonuma et al. (IDS JP 2020173315 A), hereinafter as Aonuma, further in view of Hirayama et al. (IDS JP 2006201285 A), hereinafter as Hirayama. The original and a machine translation of Ito, Aonuma and Hirayama are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 15, Ito in view of Aonuma teaches The control unit for the display device according to claim 13, but are not relied on for the below claim language wherein the displacement control unit increases a speed of the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel when the display panel displays the image in a region where the degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements is higher than in another region.
Hirayama teaches wherein the displacement control unit increases a speed of the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel when the display panel displays the image in a region where the degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements is higher than in another region (Hirayama teaches increasing speed of displacement for still image, further teaches still image is prone to burn-in, implicitly teaches the higher degradation level for still image compared to moving image, paragraph [0021] “while the above describes moving the position of the displayed image at regular intervals based on a preset time interval and movement interval, the screen movement control means 2 can effectively reduce screen burn-in by narrowing the screen movement timing when a still image is displayed compared to when a video is displayed (for example, 8 minutes when a video is displayed and 2 minutes when a still image is displayed), thereby preventing the image from remaining in one place for a long time when displaying a still image, which is more prone to burn-in than a video.”).
Ito, Aonuma and Hirayama are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Hirayama teaches narrowing movement timing to increase speed to improve rendering effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hirayama with the method of Ito and Aonuma to improve rendering effect.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (IDS JP 2019204063 A), hereinafter as Ito, in view of Hirayama et al. (IDS JP 2006201285 A), hereinafter as Hirayama. The original and a machine translation of Ito and Hirayama are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 17, Ito teaches The control unit for the display device according to claim 1, but is not relied on for the below claim language wherein the displacement control unit renders at least either one of a speed and a frequency of the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel higher when the image is a still image than when the image is a moving image. Hirayama teaches wherein the displacement control unit renders at least either one of a speed and a frequency of the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel higher when the image is a still image than when the image is a moving image (Hirayama paragraph [0021] “Furthermore, while the above describes moving the position of the displayed image at regular intervals based on a preset time interval and movement interval, the screen movement control means 2 can effectively reduce screen burn-in by narrowing the screen movement timing when a still image is displayed compared to when a video is displayed (for example, 8 minutes when a video is displayed and 2 minutes when a still image is displayed), thereby preventing the image from remaining in one place for a long time when displaying a still image, which is more prone to burn-in than a video.”).
Ito and Hirayama are in the same field of endeavor, namely displacement of image to prevent burn-in of display panel. Hirayama teaches narrowing movement timing to increase speed to improve rendering effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hirayama with the method of Ito to improve rendering effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knepper et al. (US 20160125777 A1) teaches an image sticking prevention method based on user’s gaze direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOMING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-3831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/XIAOMING WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights