PCDETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
The office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 08/07/2026 which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-19 have been amended. No claim has been newly added. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to claim 11 have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/22/2026. The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn based on the amendments of claims 1, 2 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ito and Aonuma as fully explained below.
Applicant argues Ito does not teach the newly amended independent claims.
Examiner agrees. Ito does not teach the limitation of “displaces the display panel in a direction along the display surface of the display panel”. However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ito and Aonuma as fully explained below.
Applicant argues Kato, Aonuma, Seo and Hirayama do not teach the newly amended independent claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Aonuma teaches the newly added limitation of “controls a displacing mechanism that displaces the display panel in a direction along the display surface of the display panel” in Figure 3 and paragraph [0031] “when display panel 1 moves, the displayed image moves along with display panel 1, and from the user's perspective, the display position shifts by the amount of movement of display panel 1. …… In other words, the video movement unit 23 outputs a video movement signal in the opposite direction to the movement direction of the display panel 1, by the same amount as the movement of the display panel 1, in order to return the display position of the image after the movement of the display panel 1 to the initial image position before the movement.”, 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” and 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.”.
Second, Examiner agrees that Kato, Seo and Hirayama do not teach the newly added limitation.
Conclusions: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. New citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection and such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant's amendments to the claims. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
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, 10-13, 16, 18 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, 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 1, Ito teaches A controller for a display device (Ito teaches the display control unit 32 as the controller, 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 that includes 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.”), wherein the controller stops the displacement of a position of an image in the display panel when: a viewing signal is received that indicates that a viewer is 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.”), and displacing the position in the display panel where the 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 suspending the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel …… in a case that the viewing signal is received (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 is not relied on for the below claim language …… by controlling a displacing mechanism that displaces the display panel in a direction along the display surface of the display panel …… Aonuma teaches …… by controlling a displacing mechanism that displaces the display panel in a direction along the display surface of the display panel …… (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.”)
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 10, Ito in view of Aonuma teaches The controller for the display device according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the controller controls the displacing mechanism to further 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 controller for the display device according to claim 10, and further teach wherein: the display panel is capable of being 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 controller 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 to form the loop (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 in view of Aonuma teaches The controller for the display device according to claim 1, and further teach wherein the controller measures a degradation level of the plurality of self-luminous elements, and controls the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel based on 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 in view of Aonuma teaches The controller for the display device according to claim 1, and further teach wherein the controller 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 (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 in view of Aonuma teaches A display device comprising: the controller for the display device (Ito teaches the display unit 31 as the display panel, the display control unit 32 as the controller, 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); and the display panel (Ito teaches the display unit 31 as the display panel).
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.”) that includes 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: displacing a position in the 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.”); stopping the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel in a case that: a viewing signal is received that indicates that a viewer is 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.”), and displacing the position in the display panel where the 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 suspending the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel …… in a case that the viewing signal is received (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 is not relied on for the below claim language …… by controlling a displacing mechanism that displaces the display panel in a direction along the display surface of the display panel …… Aonuma teaches …… by controlling a displacing mechanism that displaces the display panel in a direction along the display surface of the display panel …… (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.”)
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.
Claim(s) 2-9 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 Aonuma et al. (IDS JP 2020173315 A), hereinafter as Aonuma, further in view of Kato et al. (IDS JP 2006293149 A), hereinafter as Kato. The original and a machine translation of Ito, Aonuma and Kato are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 2, Ito in view of Aonuma teaches The controller for the display device according to claim 1, but is not relied on for the below claim language wherein the viewing signal further indicates that either a finger of the viewer or a touch pen by 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 further indicates that either a finger of the viewer or a touch pen by 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, Aonuma 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 and Aonuma to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 3, Ito in view of Aonuma and Kato teach The controller for the display device according to claim 2, and further teach wherein the display device further 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, Aonuma 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 and Aonuma to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 4, Ito in view of Aonuma and Kato teach The controller 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, Aonuma 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 and Aonuma to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 5, Ito in view of Aonuma and Kato teach The controller for the display device according to claim 3, and further teach wherein the controller 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, Aonuma 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 and Aonuma to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 6, Ito in view of Aonuma and Kato teach The controller for the display device according to claim 5, and further teach wherein the viewing signal further 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 Aonuma and Kato teach The controller for the display device according to claim 2, and further teach wherein the display device further includes a sensor that transmits the viewing signal (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, Aonuma 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 and Aonuma to improve rendering effect.
Regarding Claim 8, Ito in view of Aonuma and Kato teach The controller for the display device according to claim 2, and further 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, Aonuma and Kato 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 Aonuma and Kato teach The controller for the display device according to claim 2, and further 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, Aonuma and Kato 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) 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 controller for the display device according to claim 13, but are not relied on for the below claim language wherein the controller 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 controller 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 and 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 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 controller for the display device according to claim 13, but are not relied on for the below claim language wherein the controller 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 controller 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.
Regarding Claim 17, Ito in view of Aonuma teaches The controller for the display device according to claim 1, but is not relied on for the below claim language wherein the controller renders, when the image is a still image, at least either one of a speed or a frequency of the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel higher than when the image is a moving image. Hirayama teaches wherein the controller renders, when the image is a still image, at least either one of a speed or a frequency of the displacement of the position of the image in the display panel higher 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, 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.
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 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.
/XIAOMING WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights