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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the applicant argues that Xu (US Pub. 2018/0342189 A1) fails to teach “at least one analysis area, among the plurality analysis areas, comprises one or more blocks each comprising a preset number of pixels”. The Office respectfully submits that Xu discloses a method of dividing an image into a plurality of blocks; analyzing each block to determine a complexity; and generating a luminance adjustment coefficient for each block. The claim language requires each analysis area comprising one or more blocks (Emphasis added). Therefore, each block D of Xu may be equivalent to one analysis area as claimed. In other words, Xu discloses that the image is divided into a plurality of analysis areas (i.e., blocks D, Fig. 2) in which each analysis area comprises one block. Xu further discloses that a luminance adjustment coefficient is applied to each block. Accordingly, Xu teaches “the dimming control signal has a same dimming value for the one or more blocks comprises in the at least one analysis area”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2018/0122296 A1) in view of Xu (US Pub. 2018/0342189 A1).
Regarding claim 1; Lee teaches a display apparatus (a display system 10, Fig.1) comprising:
a display (a display panel 11);
memory (a storage device 16) storing one or more instructions (para. [0028]); and
one or more processors (an application processor 13) configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (para. [0028]), wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the display apparatus to:
obtain, for an image comprising an analysis area (Figs. 3 and 4, para. [0038,0048], a control logic 210 obtains an image data RGB. The control logic 210 comprises an image complexity calculator 212 configured to analyze the image data RGB),
image complexity information of the analysis area (para. [0048], the image complexity calculator 212 calculates image complexity by analyzing the pattern of the image data RGB),
classify the analysis area into a plurality of classes based on the image complexity information (para. [0048-0050], the image complexity calculator 212 outputs weight data wv based on the image data RGB. The value of weight data WV is generated based on determining that the image complexity is a high complexity or a low complexity. In particular, para. [0049], the image complexity is determined based on a difference in data value between one pixel PX, which is selected from among the pixels PX, and pixels PX adjacent to the pixel PX. When a difference value is greater than a preset reference value, the image data RGB is determined as having a complex pattern (i.e., high complexity class). When a difference value is lower than the preset reference value, the image data RGB is determined as having a simple pattern (i.e., low complexity class). The value of the weight data wv is generated based on the degree of the image complexity. More specifically, a low weight data or a high weight data is generated with respect to an image RGB having a low complexity or high complexity, respectively. Therefore, Lee further teaches classifying the image complexity into a plurality of classes; and generating a plurality of dimming control signals to control the analysis area based on the plurality of classes), and
generate a plurality of dimming control signals configured to control a brightness of the analysis area based on the plurality of classes (Fig.4, para. [0044-0051], the image complexity calculator 212 generates a weight data wv based on image complexity (e.g., low or high). The control logic 210 generates a brightness correction data dy based on the weight data wv. In particular, a high weight data wv is generated with respect to the image data RGB having the complex pattern (i.e., high complexity class). A low weight data wv is generated with respect to the image data RGB having a simple pattern (i.e., low complexity class). The control logic 210 further comprises an output data calculator 215 configured to generate a corrected image data RGB’ based on the brightness correction data dy).
Lee does not teach that a plurality of analysis areas, wherein at least one analysis area, among the plurality of analysis areas, comprises one or more blocks each comprising a preset number of pixels; wherein the dimming control signal has a same dimming value for the one or more blocks comprises in the at least one analysis area.
Xu teaches a plurality of analysis areas (Fig. 2, a plurality of blocks D), wherein at least one analysis area, among the plurality of analysis areas, comprises one or more blocks each comprising a preset number of pixels (Fig. 2, para. [0090-0091], Xu discloses a method of dividing an image into a plurality of blocks D; analyzing edge information of each block to determine an image complexity of each block; and generating a luminance adjustment coefficient for each block. In other words, each analysis area comprises one block. Each block may comprise 4x3 pixels); wherein the dimming control signal has a same dimming value for the one or more blocks comprises in the at least one analysis area (Fig. 2 and para. [0090-0091] , each analysis area comprise one block. Therefore, a luminance adjustment coefficient of each block of each analysis area would be equal to itself).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee to include the teaching of Xu of dividing an image into a plurality of analysis areas each comprises one block; determining an edge information amount of a block to indicate an image complexity; and generating a luminance adjustment coefficient for each block based on the image complexity because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of Xu is expressly provided by Xu, stating that “to maintain details in darker part of the image, and to adjust the luminance of bright of complex part of image to greater extent” (para. [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of Xu with the motivation provided by Xu. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving the display quality.
Regarding claim 7; Lee in view of Xu teaches the display apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. Lee further teaches classify the at least one analysis area into the class by obtaining an image complexity value based on the image complexity information (para. [0068], the control logic 210 comprises a pattern analysis unit 212_3 configured to generate a weight value WV based on an image complexity. In particular, in the case of the high image complexity, the weight data WV becomes a high value. In the case of lower image complexity, the weight data WV becomes a lower value) and classifying the at least one analysis area into the class among the plurality of classes based on the image complexity value, wherein the class corresponds to image complexity values greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, and based on the at least one analysis area being classified into the class (para. [0068 and 0087], the image complexity may be high or low as a result of edge detection), generate the dimming control signal to cause the brightness of the at least one analysis area to decrease (para. [0068], the image complexity may be high or low. In other words, when the image complexity is higher than a threshold (i.e., high image complexity), the control logic 210 applies a first brightness correction data dy1. When the image complexity is lower than the threshold (i.e., low image complexity), the control logic 210 applies a second brightness correction data dy2. Para. [0087], when the image complexity is increased, the data voltage (i.e., brightness) is decreased).
Lee does not teach the plurality of analysis areas.
Xu teaches the plurality of analysis areas (see the analysis of claim 1 above).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8; Lee in view of Xu teaches the display apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. Lee further teaches classify the at least one analysis area into a class among the plurality of classes by obtaining an image complexity value based on the image complexity information and classifying the at least one analysis area into at least one of a first class or a second class, from among the plurality of classes, based on the image complexity value (para. [0068], the control logic 210 comprises a pattern analysis unit 212_3 configured to generate a weight value WV based on an image complexity. In particular, in the case of the high image complexity (i.e., first class as claimed), the weight data WV becomes a high value. In the case of lower image complexity (i.e., second class as claimed), the weight data WV becomes a lower value), wherein the first class corresponds to image complexity values greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold and the second class corresponds to image complexity values less than the predetermined threshold (para. [0068 and 0087], the image complexity may be high or low as a result of edge detection), based on the at least one analysis area being classified into the first class, cause a dimming control signal, among the plurality of dimming control signals, to include a first dimming value corresponding to a first decrease in the brightness of the at least one analysis area, and based on the at least one analysis area being classified into the second class, cause the dimming control signal to include a second dimming value corresponding to a second decrease in the brightness of the at least one analysis area, wherein the second decrease in the brightness is less than the first decrease in the brightness (para. [0068], the image complexity may be high or low. In other words, when the image complexity is higher than a threshold (i.e., high image complexity or first class as claimed), the control logic 210 applies a first brightness correction data dy1 (i.e., first decrease as claimed). When the image complexity is lower than the threshold (i.e., low image complexity or second class as claimed), the control logic 210 applies a second brightness correction data dy2 (i.e., second decrease as claimed). The first/second decrease would be a difference in data value between input image data RGB and corrected image data RGB’. Para. [0058], Lee states “…The difference in data value between image data RGB having a simple pattern with relatively low image complexity and corrected image data RGB′ based on the image data RGB is less than the difference in data value between image data RGB having a complex pattern and corrected image data RGB′ based on the image data RGB…”. In other words, the second decrease is less than the first decrease).
Lee does not teach the plurality of analysis areas.
Xu teaches the plurality of analysis areas (see the analysis of claim 1 above).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12; Lee in view of Xu teaches A method of operating a display apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining, for an image comprising a plurality of analysis areas, image complexity information of each analysis area of the plurality of analysis areas, wherein at least one analysis area, among the plurality of analysis areas, comprises one or more blocks each comprising a preset number of pixels; classifying the plurality of analysis areas into a plurality of classes based on the image complexity information of each analysis area of the plurality of analysis areas; and generating a plurality of dimming control signals configured to control a brightness of the plurality of analysis areas based on the plurality of classes, wherein the dimming control signal has a same dimming value for the one or more blocks comprised in the at least one analysis area (similar to the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18; Lee in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 12 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 7. Thus, claim 18 is rejected based on the same analysis as the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20; Lee in view of Xu teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (Lee, a storage device 16, Fig.1) having instructions stored therein (Lee, para. [0028]), which when executed by at least one processor (Lee, an application processor 13, Fig.1) cause the at least one processor to execute a method of operating a display apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining, for an image comprising a plurality of analysis areas, image complexity information of each of the plurality of analysis areas, wherein at least one analysis area, among the plurality of analysis areas, comprises one or more blocks each comprising a preset number of pixels; classifying the plurality of analysis areas into a plurality of classes based on the respective image complexity information of each of the plurality of analysis areas; and generating a plurality of dimming control signals configured to control a brightness of the plurality of analysis areas based on the plurality of classes, wherein the dimming control signal has a same dimming value for the one or more blocks comprised in the at least one analysis area (similar to the analysis of claim 1).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2018/0122296 A1) in view of Xu (US Pub. 2018/0342189 A1) A1) as applied to claim 1 and 12 above; further in view of OK et al. (US Pub. 2020/0264567 A1).
Regarding claim 2; Lee in view of Xu teaches the display apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lee does not teach determining image complexity of each analysis area of the plurality of analysis areas.
Xu teaches determining image complexity of each analysis area of the plurality of analysis areas (see the analysis of claim 1 above).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1.
Lee does not explicitly teach the image complexity information comprises of a number of objects in the analysis area, a number of hue ranges with cumulative pixels in the analysis area, or an edge component ratio of the at least one analysis area.
OK teaches the image complexity information comprises of a number of objects in the analysis area, a number of hue ranges with cumulative pixels in the analysis area, or an edge component ratio of the at least one analysis area (para. [0083], a processor 120 determines a complexity of an image based on a number of objects in the image. For example, as the greater number of multiple objects are included in the image, the processor 120 may determine that the complexity is high. As another example, as the smaller number of multiple objects are included in the image, the processor 120 may determine that the complexity is low).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee of adjusting brightness of the display based on a degree of image complexity to include the teaching of Kim of determining a complexity score of an image based on a number of objects in the image because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display system of Lee as modified by OK is known to yield a predictable result of determining a degree of complexity of an image. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the display system of Lee the ability to do the method of OK since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13; Lee in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 12 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 2. Thus, claim 13 is rejected based on the same analysis as the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2018/0122296 A1) in view of Xu (US Pub. 2018/0342189 A1) A1) as applied to claim 1 and 12 above; further in view of OK et al. (US Pub. 2020/0264567 A1) and Grobelny et al. (US Pub. 2024/0020427 A1).
Regarding claim 3; Lee in view of Xu teaches the display apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lee does not teach the plurality of analysis areas.
Xu teaches the plurality of analysis areas (see the analysis of claim 1 above).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1.
Lee does not teach identify a number of objects in at least one analysis area by applying the at least one analysis area to an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and classify the at least one analysis area into the class based on the identified number of objects.
OK teaches identify a number of objects in the at least one analysis area by applying the at least one analysis area, and classify the at least one analysis area into a class among the plurality of classes based on the identified number of objects (para. [0083], a processor 120 determines a complexity of an image based on a number of objects in the image. For example, as the greater number of multiple objects are included in the image, the processor 120 may determine that the complexity is high. As another example, as the smaller number of multiple objects are included in the image, the processor 120 may determine that the complexity is low).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee of adjusting brightness of the display based on a degree of image complexity to include the teaching of Kim of determining a complexity score of an image based on a number of objects in the image because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display system of Lee as modified by OK is known to yield a predictable result of determining a degree of complexity of an image. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the display system of Lee the ability to do the method of OK since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lee in view of Xu and OK does not teach identify a number of objects in the at least one analysis area by applying the at least one analysis area to an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
Grobelny teaches identify a number of objects in the at least one analysis area by applying the at least one analysis area to an artificial intelligence (AI) model (para. [0041], an inference engine 207 includes ML/AI model configured to detect, recognize, or identify; in an image 206; a number of persons in the image).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee in view of OK to include the ML/AI model of Grobelny for identifying a number of persons in an image because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display system of Lee in view of OK as modified by Grobelny is known to yield a predictable result of improving the accuracy, efficiency, and speed of the image analysis. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the display system of Lee in view of OK the ability to include the ML/AI model of Grobelny since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4; Lee in view of Xu, OK, and Grobelny teaches the display apparatus of claim 3 as discussed above. Lee does not teach based on the identified number of objects being at least a reference number, classify the at least one analysis area into a first class, and based on the identified number of objects being less than the reference number, classify the at least one analysis area into a second class.
OK teaches based on the identified number of objects being at least a reference number, classify the at least one analysis area into a first class, and based on the identified number of objects being less than the reference number, classify the at least one analysis area into a second class (para. [0083], for example, as the greater number of multiple objects are included in the image, the processor 120 may determine that the complexity is high. As another example, as the smaller number of multiple objects are included in the image, the processor 120 may determine that the complexity is low. OK implies that there would be a reference number of objects for identifying whether the complexity is high or low).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14; Lee in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 12 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 3. Thus, claim 14 is rejected based on the same analysis as the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 15; Lee in view of Xu, OK, and Grobelny teaches the method of claim 14 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 4. Thus, claim 15 is rejected based on the same analysis as the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2018/0122296 A1) in view of Xu (US Pub. 2018/0342189 A1) A1) as applied to claim 1 and 12 above; further in view of AN (US Pub. 2013/0222221 A1) A1) and Funamoto (US Pub. 2022/0130053 A1).
Regarding claim 5; Lee in view of Xu teaches the display apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lee does not teach the plurality of analysis areas.
Xu teaches the plurality of analysis areas (see the analysis of claim 1 above).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1.
Lee does not teach convert color components of pixels in the at least one analysis area, obtain a hue histogram comprising a distribution of pixels that have the converted color components and are accumulated in each of a plurality of hue ranges, obtain a number of the plurality of hue ranges with cumulative pixels in the hue histogram, and identify the class among the plurality of classes based on the number of the plurality of hue ranges.
AN teaches identify the class among the plurality of classes based on a number of a plurality of hue ranges (Fig.5, para. [0031, 0043, 0058], the complexity of the input image can be determined based on a number of recognizable colors. It is understood that each recognizable color would be corresponding to a specific hue range. Therefore, AN further teaches a method of identifying a degree of complexity based on a number of recognizable colors).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of AN of identifying a degree of complexity based on a number of recognizable colors (i.e., hue ranges) because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display system of Lee as modified by AN is known to yield a predictable result of determining a degree of complexity of an input image. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the display system of Lee the ability to do the method of AN since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Funamoto teaches convert color components of pixels in the at least one analysis area (Fig.3, para. [0071], a second generator 113 converts image data into a color (hue)), obtain a hue histogram (Fig.6, a hue histogram) comprising a distribution of pixels that have the converted color components and are accumulated in each of a plurality of hue ranges (Fig.6, para. [0062], the hue histogram is a graph representing the distribution of pixels in hue ranges), obtain a number of the plurality of hue ranges with cumulative pixels in the hue histogram (Fig.6, para. [0063], the hue histogram has 32 hue ranges. For example, in the hue histogram, hue ranges Bin [0] to Bin [3] are defined as a specific hue range determined as having a specific color).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee in view of AN to include the method of Funamoto of using a hue histogram to determine a plurality of specific colors because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display system of Lee in view of AN as modified by Funamoto is known to yield a predictable result of determining a plurality of specific colors. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the display system of Lee in view of AN the ability to do the method of Funamoto since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16; Lee in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 12 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 5. Thus, claim 16 is rejected based on the same analysis as the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2018/0122296 A1) in view of Xu (US Pub. 2018/0342189 A1) A1) as applied to claim 1 and 12 above; further in view of Branson et al. (US Pub. 2018/0046499 A1).
Regarding claim 6; Lee in view of Xu teaches the display apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lee does not teach the plurality of analysis areas, obtain an edge component ratio corresponding to a point where values of pixels belonging to the at least one analysis area are discontinuous, and classify the at least one analysis area into the class among the plurality of classes based on the edge component ratio.
Xu teaches the plurality of analysis areas (see the analysis of claim 1 above); obtain an edge component ratio corresponding to a point where values of pixels are greater than a threshold, and classify the at least one analysis area into the class among the plurality of classes based on the edge component ratio (para. [0095, 0097], Xu discloses a method of dividing a display panel into a plurality of blocks; determining an edge information amount in each block; determining an image complexity based on the edge information amount; and adjusting luminance based on the image complexity. It is understood that the edge information amount of a block would be corresponding to a ratio of edge pixels to all pixels of the block).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee to include the teaching of Xu of determining an edge information amount of a display block to indicate an image complexity; and adjusting luminance of a display panel based on the image complexity because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of Xu is expressly provided by Xu, stating that “to maintain details in darker part of the image, and to adjust the luminance of bright of complex part of image to greater extent” (para. [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of Xu with the motivation provided by Xu. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving the display quality.
Lee in view of Xu does not explicitly teach edge information amount corresponding to a point where values of pixels belonging to the at least one analysis area are discontinuous.
Branson teaches edge information amount corresponding to a point where values of pixels belonging to the at least one analysis area are discontinuous (para. [0052], an edge detection operation identifies locations in an image where pixel values, such as brightness, are discontinuous, i.e., adjacent pixels change abruptly).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee in view of Xu to include the teaching of Branson of determining an edge information amount corresponding to locations in an image where pixel values are discontinuous because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display system of Lee in view of Xu as modified by Branson is known to yield a predictable result of improving the edge detection efficiency of the image. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the display system of Lee in view of Xu the ability to include the method of Branson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17; Lee in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 12 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 6. Thus, claim 17 is rejected based on the same analysis as the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2018/0122296 A1) in view of Xu (US Pub. 2018/0342189 A1) A1) as applied to claim 8, 1, and 12 above; further in view of AN (US Pub. 2013/0222221 A1).
Regarding claim 9; Lee in view of Xu teaches the display apparatus of claim 8 as discussed above.
Lee does not teach the plurality of analysis areas.
Xu teaches the plurality of analysis areas (see the analysis of claim 1 above).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1.
Lee does not teach the dimming control signal, among the plurality of dimming control signals, comprises at least one of a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal or a pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) signal, wherein, based on the dimming control signal including the PWM signal, a PWM duty ratio corresponding to the first dimming value is smaller than a PWM duty ratio corresponding to the second dimming value, and wherein, based on the dimming control signal including the PAM signal, a PAM amplitude corresponding to the first dimming value is smaller than a PAM amplitude corresponding to the second dimming value.
An teaches the dimming control signal, among the plurality of dimming control signals, (a backlight dimming signal CDIM, Fig.1) comprises at least one of a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal (para. [0025 and 0033], the CDIM comprises a PWM signal) or a pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) signal, wherein, based on the dimming control signal including the PWM signal, a PWM duty ratio corresponding to the first dimming value is smaller than a PWM duty ratio corresponding to the second dimming value, and wherein, based on the dimming control signal including the PAM signal, a PAM amplitude corresponding to the first dimming value is smaller than a PAM amplitude corresponding to the second dimming value (Figs. 1 and 2, para. [0031], AN discloses a display system comprising a convex gain calculator 10 configured to receive an input image; analyze the complexity of the input image; and calculate a convex gain CG based on the complexity. Para. [0031], when the complexity of the input image has a relative large value, the convex gain calculator 10 greatly reduces the convex gain CG to be applied to a peripheral part of the screen of the liquid crystal display panel. On the other hand, when the complexity of the input image has a relative small value, the convex gain calculator 10 slightly reduces the convex gain CG to be applied to the peripheral part of the screen. In other words, when the image complexity is high, a peripheral part has a first brightness (or first PWM duty). When the image complexity is low, the peripheral part has a second brightness (or second PWM duty). The first brightness would be lower than the second brightness. Accordingly, the first PWM duty would be smaller than the second PWM duty because PWM duty is proportional to the backlight luminance (see AN, para. [0025])).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee to include the teaching of AN of determining an image complexity; and adjusting brightness of a backlight by generating PWM signal according to the image complexity because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of AN is expressly provided by AN, stating that “to greatly reduce power consumption of the liquid crystal display without a reduction in the image quality, which the viewer can perceive” (para. [0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of AN with the motivation provided by AN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving the display quality and reducing power consumption.
Regarding claim 11; Lee in view of Xu teaches the display apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. Lee does not teach the display comprises a backlight driving circuit and a backlight unit, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the display apparatus to provide the plurality of dimming control signals to the backlight driving circuit, and wherein the backlight driving circuit is configured to control a brightness of the backlight unit based on the plurality of dimming control signals.
AN teaches the display (a display as shown in Fig.25) comprises a backlight driving circuit (a light source driver 310) and a backlight unit (a backlight unit 300), wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the display apparatus to provide the plurality of dimming control signals to the backlight driving circuit (Fig.1, the display device comprises a backlight dimming control device 100 configured to provide a backlight dimming signal CDIM to the light source driver 310), and wherein the backlight driving circuit is configured to control a brightness of the backlight unit based on the plurality of dimming control signals (para. [0031, 0033, 0086, and 0087], AN discloses a display system comprising a convex gain calculator 10 configured to receive an input image; analyze the complexity of the input image; and calculate a convex gain CG based on the complexity. The backlight dimming signal CDIM is generated based on the convex gain CG).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee to include the teaching of AN of determining an image complexity; and adjusting brightness of a backlight by generating PWM signal according to the image complexity because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of AN is expressly provided by AN, stating that “to greatly reduce power consumption of the liquid crystal display without a reduction in the image quality, which the viewer can perceive” (para. [0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of AN with the motivation provided by AN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving the display quality and reducing power consumption.
Regarding claim 19; Lee in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 12 as discussed above.
Lee further teaches the classifying the at least one analysis area into the class comprises obtaining an image complexity value based on the image complexity information and classifying the at least one analysis area into at least one of a first class or a second class based on the image complexity value (para. [0068], the control logic 210 comprises a pattern analysis unit 212_3 configured to generate a weight value WV based on an image complexity. In particular, in the case of the high image complexity (i.e., first class as claimed), the weight data WV becomes a high value. In the case of lower image complexity (i.e., second class as claimed), the weight data WV becomes a lower value), wherein the first class corresponds to image complexity values greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold and the second class corresponds to image complexity values less than the predetermined threshold (para. [0068 and 0087], the image complexity may be high or low as a result of edge detection), wherein, based on the at least one analysis area being classified into the first class, the generating the plurality of dimming control signals comprises causing a dimming control signal, among the plurality of dimming control signals, to include a first dimming value corresponding to a first decrease in the brightness of the at least one analysis area, wherein, based on the at least one analysis area being classified into the second class, the generating the dimming control signal comprises causing the dimming control signal to include a second dimming value corresponding to a second decrease in the brightness of the at least one analysis area, wherein the second decrease in the brightness is less than the first decrease in the brightness (para. [0068], the image complexity may be high or low. In other words, when the image complexity is higher than a threshold (i.e., high image complexity or first class as claimed), the control logic 210 applies a first brightness correction data dy1 (i.e., first decrease as claimed). When the image complexity is lower than the threshold (i.e., low image complexity or second class as claimed), the control logic 210 applies a second brightness correction data dy2 (i.e., second decrease as claimed). The first/second decrease would be a difference in data value between input image data RGB and corrected image data RGB’. Para. [0058], Lee states “…The difference in data value between image data RGB having a simple pattern with relatively low image complexity and corrected image data RGB′ based on the image data RGB is less than the difference in data value between image data RGB having a complex pattern and corrected image data RGB′ based on the image data RGB…”. In other words, the second decrease is less than the first decrease).
Lee does not teach the plurality of analysis areas.
Xu teaches the plurality of analysis areas (see the analysis of claim 1 above).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1.
Lee does not teach the dimming control signal comprises at least one of a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal or a pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) signal, wherein, based on the dimming control signal including the PWM signal, a PWM duty ratio corresponding to the first dimming value is smaller than a PWM duty ratio corresponding to the second dimming value, and wherein, based on the dimming control signal including the PAM signal, a PAM amplitude corresponding to the first dimming value is smaller than a PAM amplitude corresponding to the second dimming value.
An teaches the dimming control signal (a backlight dimming signal CDIM, Fig.1) comprises at least one of a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal (para. [0025 and 0033], the CDIM comprises a PWM signal) or a pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) signal, wherein, based on the dimming control signal including the PWM signal, a PWM duty ratio corresponding to the first dimming value is smaller than a PWM duty ratio corresponding to the second dimming value, and wherein, based on the dimming control signal including the PAM signal, a PAM amplitude corresponding to the first dimming value is smaller than a PAM amplitude corresponding to the second dimming value (Figs. 1 and 2, para. [0031], AN discloses a display system comprising a convex gain calculator 10 configured to receive an input image; analyze the complexity of the input image; and calculate a convex gain CG based on the complexity. Para. [0031], when the complexity of the input image has a relative large value, the convex gain calculator 10 greatly reduces the convex gain CG to be applied to a peripheral part of the screen of the liquid crystal display panel. On the other hand, when the complexity of the input image has a relative small value, the convex gain calculator 10 slightly reduces the convex gain CG to be applied to the peripheral part of the screen. In other words, when the image complexity is high, a peripheral part has a first brightness (or first PWM duty). When the image complexity is low, the peripheral part has a second brightness (or second PWM duty). The first brightness would be lower than the second brightness. Accordingly, the first PWM duty would be smaller than the second PWM duty because PWM duty is proportional to the backlight luminance (see AN, para. [0025])).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display system of Lee to include the teaching of AN of determining an image complexity; and adjusting brightness of a backlight by generating PWM signal according to the image complexity because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of AN is expressly provided by AN, stating that “to greatly reduce power consumption of the liquid crystal display without a reduction in the image quality, which the viewer can perceive” (para. [0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display system of Lee to include the method of AN with the motivation provided by AN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving the display quality and reducing power consumption.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong (US Pub. 2023/0215387 A1) discloses a data comparator 142 configured to calculate complexity of an image frame on a basis of average image level (APL) or average current luminance (ACL) and to generate a luminance control signal LCS for controlling luminance.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
