DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This action is in response to application 18871356 filed on 12/03/2024 Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
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 are: “image data correction unit”, “time-spatial enhancement unit” and “computation module” in claims 6 and 18.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “image data correction unit”, “time-spatial enhancement unit” and “computation module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although “image data correction unit”, “time-spatial enhancement unit” and “computation module” are shown in Fig. 10A as 1010, Fig. 11A as 1020 and Fig, 13A as 1210 respectively. The figures do no disclosure any structure of the respective limitations other than a box. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Prior Art Rejections
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2026/0170991 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Chu teaches a light emitting diode (LED) display (Chu, Fig. 3, LED display screen), comprising:
display panels connected to form the LED display (Chu, Figs. 3-5, display modules 32), wherein each of the display panels includes a matrix of units, each of which is represented by multiple LED lights that can be lit in a manner determined based on a corresponding pixel of an image to be visualized on the LED display (Chu, [0052], pixels including LED; Chu, [0085]-[0087], data corresponds to image at certain area); and
modules for controlling the multiple LED lights in the LED display based on content of the image (Chu, Figs. 3-5, display units 32; Chu [0125], module control device 31 generate and send data and parameters to display units 32), wherein each of the modules includes therein at least one controller and a plurality of drivers operating together to control an amount of light emitted by each LED light in the multiple LED lights in some of the display panels according to pixel values in a corresponding portion of the image (Chu, Figs. 3-5, display units 32 comprises control module CM and driver IC),
wherein each of the at least one controller and the plurality of drivers in each of the modules communicate via low voltage differential signaling (LVDS) signals (Chu, [0068], LVDS signal is used to communicate).
Regarding claim 2, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the multiple LED lights include a red, a green, and a blue (RGB) lights, each of which is to be separately controlled to emit an amount of light in accordance with corresponding red, green, and blue grayscale values of a pixel of the image (Chu, [0052], each LED display module comprises red, green and blue LED beads).
Regarding claim 3, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches the LVDS signals include RGB LVDS and grayscale (GCLK) LVDS, wherein the RGB LVDS corresponds to signals transmitted from each of the at least one controller to drivers connected thereto to control emission of light by the LED lights with respect to each pixel of the image; and
the GCLK LVDS corresponds to clock signals transmitted from the at least one controller to drivers connected thereto and to be used to centrally control timings of emissions of the LED lights (Chu, Fig. 7 and [0072], each stage contains a LVDS TX1 for data transmission and LVDS and TCLK for clock signal to control the LVDS).
Regarding claim 4, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the modules are connected in a series and communicate via serializer/deserializer (SerDes) devices (Chu, Fig. 5, display modules are connected in series; Chu, [0072], in some embodiment, LVDS are converted to Serdes signals).
Regarding claim 7, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches each module within the modules is a distinct Printed Circuit Board (PCB), resulting in a plurality of PCBs (Chu, [0052], each display module can include its own PCB board).
Regarding claim 8, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches on each module a controller within the at least one controller transmits data to at least a portion of drivers within the plurality of drivers (Chu, Fig. 5, control module CM and driver IC).
Regarding claim 9, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches a single power supply provides power to each PCB in the plurality of PCBs (Chu, [0163], power supply provide power in series to each display unit 32).
Regarding claim 12, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the at least one controller generates the LVDS signals (Chu, [0068], control device 31 transmits the LVDS signal).
Regarding claim 13, Chu teaches a module for controlling LED lights in an LED display Chu, Fig. 3, LED display screen; Chu, Figs. 3-5, display units 32; Chu [0125], module control device 31 generate and send data and parameters to display units 32), comprising:
at least one controller (Chu, Figs. 3-5, display units 32 comprises control module CM and driver IC); and
a plurality of drivers operating together to control an amount of light emitted by each of the LED lights in at least a portion of the LED display according to pixel values in a corresponding portion of an image (Chu, [0052], pixels including LED; Chu, [0085]-[0087], data corresponds to image at certain area),
wherein each of the at least one controller and the plurality of drivers in each of the modules communicate via low voltage differential signaling (LVDS) signals (Chu, [0068], LVDS signal is used to communicate).
Regarding claim 14, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches at least one serializer/deserializer (SerDes) device used to communicate with at least one neighboring module (Chu, Fig. 5, display modules are connected in series; Chu, [0072], in some embodiment, LVDS are converted to Serdes signals).
Regarding claim 15, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches the multiple LED lights include a red, a green, and a blue (RGB) lights, each of which is to be separately controlled to emit an amount of light in accordance with corresponding red, green, and blue grayscale values of a pixel of the image (Chu, [0052], each LED display module comprises red, green and blue LED beads).
Regarding claim 16, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 15 and further teaches the LVDS signals include RGB LVDS and grayscale (GCLK) LVDS, wherein the RGB LVDS corresponds to signals transmitted from each of the at least one controller to drivers connected thereto to control emission of light by the LED lights with respect to each pixel of the image; and
the GCLK LVDS corresponds to clock signals transmitted from the at least one controller to drivers connected thereto and to be used to centrally control timings of emissions of the LED lights (Chu, Fig. 7 and [0072], each stage contains a LVDS TX1 for data transmission and LVDS and TCLK for clock signal to control the LVDS).
Regarding claim 20, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches the at least one controller generates the LVDS signals (Chu, [0068], control device 31 transmits the LVDS signal).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2026/0170991 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches a power supply provides power to each PCB in the plurality of PCBs (Chu, [0163], power supply provide power in series to each display unit 32).
Chu does not seem to explicitly teach each PCB in the plurality of PCBs has a distinct power supply.
However, MPEP 2144 V states that making integral/separable does not distinguish over the prior art.
Before the time of the first effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to have separate power supplies in each of the PCB instead of a single power supply in Chu. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to allow more flexibility of expanding the display device to larger or smaller as needed.
Regarding claim 19, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches a power supply provides power to each module (Chu, [0163], power supply provide power in series to each display unit 32).
Chu does not seem to explicitly teach each module includes a power supply specific to the module.
However, MPEP 2144 V states that making integral/separable does not distinguish over the prior art.
Before the time of the first effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to have separate power supplies in each of the modules instead of a single power supply in Chu. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to allow more flexibility of expanding the display device to larger or smaller as needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11 and 17 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:
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the prior art, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose the technical features of the claimed invention in context as a whole. Prior art reference Li et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0084223 A1) teaches similarly the use of SRAMs in display controllers (Li, [0063]). However, the specifics of SRAMs included in each of the controller and performing centralized operations with the respective image in the manner claimed as a whole, is not sufficiently taught or suggested in the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose the technical features of the claimed invention in context as a whole. The specifics of the separate PCVs having distinct power supplies in the manner claimed as a whole, is not sufficiently taught or suggested in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONG HUI LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm EST.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/DONG HUI LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights