DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 (hereinafter "Remarks”) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ong et al. (USPN 2018/0286297) in view of Choi et al. (USPN 2023/0118391) in view of Flach et al. (USPN 2022/0051642) and further in view of Yasuda (USPN 2003/0160743).
With respect to claim 1, Ong teaches a computer-implemented method for controlling a display setting of a display device (Figs. 1-6), comprising:
receiving, by at least one computer processor, a display status value of the display device from a sensor, wherein the display status value is determined based on at least one of a brightness of the display device and a color value of the display device (Figs. 1-6 and at least paragraphs [0035] and [0057]-[0063] teach a processor receives display color and brightness from a sensor);
determining that the display status value needs adjusting (Figs. 1-6 and at least paragraphs [0053] and [0067]-[0078] teach sensing output from light sources and detecting when color gain values are different from reference points); and
in response to the determination, adjusting at least one of the brightness of the display device and the color value of the display device, thereby controlling the display setting of the display device (paragraphs [0053] and [0067]-[0081] teach adjusting the display to change the color and luminance to the new reference set point).
However, Ong fails to expressly teach determining a cumulative time period of use of the display device, wherein the cumulative time period is based on a usage time; determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is a function of a percentage of a target value of the brightness of the display device or the color value, and wherein the target value is determined based on a scene displayed on the display device and the cumulative time period (emphasis added) (Examiner notes Ong teaches the usage of reference points but is silent on a “range” of reference points. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner is providing an obviousness rationale that more closely reads on the inventive concept).
Choi teaches a known technique adjusting displayed color and/or luminance based on sensor readings outside of a predetermined range (Figs. 1-23 and paragraph [0109]). Specifically, Choi teaches determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range (Figs. 1-23 and paragraph [0109] teach using a sensor to detect a display and adjusting the displayed luminance of the display if the sensor readings are out of range) and wherein the target value is determined based on a scene displayed on the display device (Figs. 1-23 and paragraph [0109] teach using a sensor to detect a displayed image/scene and adjusting the displayed luminance of the display if the sensor readings are out of range)
Ong teaches a base process/product of adjusting the color and/or luminance of a display based on sensor readings which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the adjusting process determines that the display status value is outside a predetermined range and wherein the target value is determined based on a scene displayed on the display device. Choi teaches a known technique of adjusting the color and/or luminance of a display after determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range that is comparable to the base process/product.
Choi’s known technique of adjusting the color and/or luminance of a display after determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Ong and the results would have been predictable and resulted in determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range and wherein the target value is determined based on a scene displayed on the display device which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Ong in view of Choi teach determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range. However, Ong in view of Choi fail to expressly teach
determining a cumulative time period of use of the display device, wherein the cumulative time period is based on a usage time; determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is a function of a percentage of a target value of the brightness of the display device or the color value, and wherein the target value is determined based on a scene displayed on the display device and the cumulative time period (emphasis added).
Flach teaches a known technique adjusting a brightness range by a percentage to provide a safety tolerance (Figs. 5 and 6 and paragraph [0039]). Specifically, Flach teaches determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is a function of a percentage of a target value of the brightness of the display device or the color value (Figs. 5 and 6 and paragraph [0039] teach further adjusting a brightness range by a percentage to provide safety tolerances).
Ong in view of Choi teaches a base process/product of determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the determining includes determining a cumulative time period of use of the display device, wherein the cumulative time period is based on a usage time; determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is a function of a percentage of a target value of the brightness of the display device or the color value, and wherein the target value is determined based on a scene displayed on the display device and the cumulative time period. Flach teaches a known technique of adjusting a brightness range by a percentage to provide a safety tolerance that is comparable to the base process/product.
Flach’s known technique of adjusting a brightness range by a percentage to provide a safety tolerance would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Ong in view of Choi and the results would have been predictable and resulted in determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is a function of a percentage of a target value of the brightness of the display device or the color value which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Ong in view of Choi and further in view of Flach teach determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range. However, Ong in view of Choi and further in view of Flach fail to expressly teach determining a cumulative time period of use of the display device, wherein the cumulative time period is based on a usage time; determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is a function of a percentage of a target value of the brightness of the display device or the color value, and wherein the target value is determined based on a scene displayed on the display device and the cumulative time period (emphasis added).
Yasuda teaches a known technique tracking accumulated time and adjusting display characteristics based on the cumulative time period (Figs. 1-10. At least Figs. 4-6 and paragraphs [0037]-[0041]).
Ong in view of Choi and further in view of Flach teaches a base process/product of determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that determining a cumulative time period of use of the display device, wherein the cumulative time period is based on a usage time; determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is based on the cumulative time period. Yasuda teaches a known technique of tracking accumulated time and adjusting display characteristics based on the cumulative time period that is comparable to the base process/product.
Yasuda’s known technique of tracking accumulated time and adjusting display characteristics based on the cumulative time period would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Ong in view of Choi and further in view of Flach and the results would have been predictable and resulted in determining a cumulative time period of use of the display device, wherein the cumulative time period is based on a usage time; determining that the display status value is outside a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is based on the cumulative time period which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the sensor is located in a space between a display panel of the display device and a light source illuminating the display panel (Ong, Fig. 2A, item 290 and paragraphs [0044]-[0047], [0058] and [0073]; and Choi, Fig. 6, item 620 and paragraphs [0093]-[0095]. Examiner notes the term “space between” is subject to a reasonably broad interpretation and includes relative positioning as taught by Ong).
With respect to claim 3, Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, discussed above, wherein the light source and the sensor are located on a back plate of the display device (Ong, Fig. 2A and paragraphs [0044]-[0047], [0058] and [0073]; and Choi, Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0093]-[0095]. Although not shown in Ong, Examiner notes a back plate is inherently required for all the components to be placed on. Examiner further notes the term “on” is subject to a reasonably broad interpretation and includes the teachings of Ong including intervening elements).
With respect to claim 7, Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the sensor is located outside of the display device (Ong, paragraphs [0061] and [0062]).
Claim 8, a system, corresponds to and is analyzed and rejected for substantially the same reasons as the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, discussed above.
Ong further teaches one or more memories (Figs. 1-2B and paragraphs [0029], [0033] and [0083]); and at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the memories and configured to perform operations (Figs. 1-2B and paragraphs [0029], [0030], [0033], [0082] and [0083]).
The further limitations of claim 9 and 10 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 2 and 3, discussed above.
The further limitations of claim 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7, discussed above.
Claim 15, a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations, corresponds to and is analyzed and rejected for substantially the same reasons as the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, discussed above.
Ong further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations (Figs. 1-2B and paragraphs [0029], [0030], [0033], [0082] and [0083]).
The further limitations of claims 16 and 17 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 2 and 3, discussed above.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ong et al. (USPN 2018/0286297) in view of Choi et al. (USPN 2023/0118391) in view of Flach et al. (USPN 2022/0051642) in view of Yasuda (USPN 2003/0160743) and further in view of Kim et al. (USPN 2024/0282257).
With respect to claim 4, Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, discussed above.
However, Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda fail to expressly teach further comprising: adjusting the predetermined range based on the cumulative time period of use of the display device, wherein a brightness used for the predetermined range is decreased as the cumulative time period increases.
Kim teaches a known technique decreasing luminance based on cumulative usage time (Fig. 19 and paragraphs [0159]-[0160] teach decreasing intensity based on accumulated time to prevent burn-in).
Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda teaches a base process/product of adjusting a predetermined display range based on a display sensor which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the process further comprises: adjusting the predetermined range based on the cumulative time period of use of the display device, wherein a brightness used for the predetermined range is decreased as the cumulative time period increases. Kim teaches a known technique decreasing luminance based on cumulative usage time that is comparable to the base process/product.
Kim’s known technique of decreasing luminance based on cumulative usage time would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda and the results would have been predictable and resulted in further comprising: adjusting the predetermined range based on the cumulative time period of use of the display device, wherein a brightness used for the predetermined range is decreased as the cumulative time period increases which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The further limitations of claims 11 and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4, discussed above.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ong et al. (USPN 2018/0286297) in view of Choi et al. (USPN 2023/0118391) in view of Flach et al. (USPN 2022/0051642) in view of Yasuda (USPN 2003/0160743) and further in view of Chaji (USPN 2016/0293102).
With respect to claim 5, Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, discussed above.
However, Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda fail to expressly teach further comprising: detecting that a temperature of the display device exceeds a thermal threshold value; and in response to the detecting, skipping increasing the brightness of the display device.
Chaji teaches a known technique lowering the brightness of a display when a high temperature is detected (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0059]).
Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda teaches a base process/product of updating brightness of a display which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the display further comprises detecting that a temperature of the display device exceeds a thermal threshold value; and in response to the detecting, skipping increasing the brightness of the display device. Chaji teaches a known technique of lowering the brightness of a display when a high temperature is detected that is comparable to the base process/product.
Chaji’s known technique of lowering the brightness of a display when a high temperature is detected would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda and the results would have been predictable and resulted in further comprising: detecting that a temperature of the display device exceeds a thermal threshold value; and in response to the detecting, skipping increasing the brightness of the display device which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The further limitations of claims 12 and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5, discussed above.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ong et al. (USPN 2018/0286297) in view of Choi et al. (USPN 2023/0118391) in view of Flach et al. (USPN 2022/0051642) in view of Yasuda (USPN 2003/0160743) and further in view of Buckley et al. (USPN 2018/0254020).
With respect to claim 6, Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, discussed above.
However, Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda fail to expressly teach further comprising: transmitting the display status value over a network; and updating the predetermined range based on data received over the network.
Buckley teaches a known technique sending sensor information to a remote processor connected via a network to update a display (paragraphs [0082] and [0083]).
Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda teaches a base process/product of updating display parameters based on sensor data which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the updating is performed remotely by transmitting the display status value over a network; and updating the predetermined range based on data received over the network. Buckley teaches a known technique of sending sensor information to a remote processor connected via a network to update a display that is comparable to the base process/product.
Buckley’s known technique of sending sensor information to a remote processor connected via a network to update a display would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Ong in view of Choi in view of Flach and further in view of Yasuda and the results would have been predictable and resulted in a display further comprising: transmitting the display status value over a network; and updating the predetermined range based on data received over the network which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The further limitations of claims 13 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6, discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830am-5pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached at 571-272-7603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Antonio Xavier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights