Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 28 and 28 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.
Claims 28 and 38 recite the limitations "the first color", “the second color” and “the third color”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 – 25, 29, 31 – 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0097981 A1).
As to claim 21, Park shows a method of driving a display (Fig. 3 and paras. 31 and 32), comprising: providing, by one or more line (scan) drivers 200/300 of a display panel (Fig. 3 and para. 35) during a time period for rendering a frame on the display panel (paras. 50 and 51), first (i.e. odd) scan signals sequentially to a first set of scan lines (S1, S3, etc.) of the display panel (Figs. 3, 5 and 7 and paras. 50 – 53); and providing, by the one or more line drivers of the display panel during the time period for rendering the frame on the display panel and after the first scan signals have been provided to the first set of scan lines of the display panel (i.e. during the second half of the frame, Figs. 5 and 7 and paras. 50 and 51), second (i.e. even) scan signals sequentially to a second set of scan lines (S2, S4, etc.) of the display panel (Figs. 3, 5 and 7 and paras. 50 – 53), wherein the first set of scan lines are interleaved with the second set of scan lines (Fig. 3).
As to claim 31, Park shows a display panel 100 (Fig. 3 and paras. 31 – 33), comprising: an array or subpixels (paras. 9 and 60); a plurality of scan lines (Figs. 3, 5 and 7 and paras. 50 – 53); one or more line (scan) drivers 200/300 (Fig. 3 and para. 35) configured to provide, during a time period for rendering a frame on the display panel (paras. 50 and 51): (i) first (i.e. odd) scan signals sequentially to a first set of scan lines (S1, S3, etc.) of the plurality of scan lines (Figs. 3, 5 and 7 and paras. 50 – 53); and (ii) second (i.e. even) scan signals sequentially to a second set of scan lines of the plurality of scan lines (S2, S4, etc., Figs. 3, 5 and 7 and paras. 50 – 53), wherein the first set of scan lines are interleaved with the second set of scan lines (Fig. 3).
As to claims 22 and 32, Park shows that the first set of scan lines are interleaved with the second set of scan lines such that scan lines of the display panel alternate in order between a scan line from the first set of scan lines and a scan line from the second set of scan lines (Fig. 3).
As to claims 23 and 33, Park shows that the first set of scan lines are a set of odd scan lines of the display panel; and the second set of scan lines are even scan lines (Figs. 3).
As to claims 24 and 34, Park shows that providing the first scan signals sequentially to the first set of scan lines involves providing the first scan signals to each scan line of the first set of scan lines one after another (Figs. 3, 5 and 7 and paras. 50 – 53); and providing the second scan signals sequentially to the second set of scan lines involves providing the second scan signals to each scan line of the second set of scan lines one after another (Figs. 3, 5 and 7 and paras. 50 – 53).
As to claims 25 and 35, Park shows that the one or more line drivers provide the first scan signals sequentially to the first set of scan lines, from a first side of the display panel to a second side of the display panel that opposes the first side of the display panel (i.e. left-to-right, Fig. 3 and para. 35); and the one or more line drivers provide the second scan signals sequentially to the second set of scan lines from the second side of the display panel to the first side of the display panel (i.e. right-to-left, Fig. 3 and para. 35).
As to claims 29 and 39, Park shows that the one or more line drivers include a first line driver 200 and a second line driver 300 (Fig. 3 and para. 35); the first scan signals are provided to the first set of scan lines by the first line driver (Fig. 3 and para. 35); and the second scan signals are provided to the second set of scan lines by the second line driver (Fig. 3 and para. 35).
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 26 – 28, 30, 36 – 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kwak et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0025669 A1).
As to claims 26 and 36, Park does not show that the first scan signals provided to the first set of scan lines control, in a first column of the display panel, subpixels of only a first color; and the second scan signals provided to the second set of scan lines control, in the first column of the display panel, subpixels of only a second color.
Kwak shows that a first scan signals provided to a first set of scan lines (i.e. odd scan lines S1, S3, etc., Fig. 1 and paras. 35 and 45) control, in a first column of the display panel, subpixels of only a first color (i.e. odd scan lines in the same column will activate red subpixels, Fig. 1 and paras. 35 and 45); and the second scan signals provided to a second set of scan lines (i.e. even scan lines S2, S4, etc., Fig. 1 and paras. 35 and 45) control, in the first column of the display panel, subpixels of only a second color (i.e. even scan lines in the same column will activate blue subpixels, Fig. 1 and paras. 35 and 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Park with those of Kwak because designing the system in this way allows the device to produce higher quality images (para. 38).
As to claims 27 and 37, Park does not show that the display panel includes a plurality of subpixels of a first color, a second color, and a third color arranged in an array, with lines of the array each including subpixels arranged in a repeating pattern of: (i) a subpixel of the first color; (ii) a subpixel of the second color; (iii) a subpixel of the third color; and (iv) a subpixel of the second color.
Kwak shows that a display panel includes a plurality of subpixels of a first color (red), a second color (green), and a third color (blue) arranged in an array, with lines of the array each including subpixels arranged in a repeating pattern of: (i) a subpixel of the first color; (ii) a subpixel of the second color; (iii) a subpixel of the third color; and (iv) a subpixel of the second color (Fig. 1 and paras. 33 – 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Park with those of Kwak because designing the system in this way allows the device to produce higher quality images (para. 38).
As to claims 28 and 38, Park shows that the lines of the array are rows of the array (Fig. 3)
Park does not show that alternating columns of the array include subpixels: (a) arranged in a repeating pattern of a subpixel of a first color and a subpixel of a third color; and (b) having subpixels of only a second color.
Kwak shows that show that alternating columns of an array include subpixels: (a) arranged in a repeating pattern of a subpixel of a first color and a subpixel of a third color; and (b) having subpixels of only a second color (Fig. 1 and paras. 33 – 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Park with those of Kwak because designing the system in this way allows the device to produce higher quality images (para. 38).
As to claims 30 and 40, Park does not show that the first scan signals comprise signals to activate emission of subpixels controlled by the first set of scan lines; and the second scan signals comprise signals to activate emission of subpixels controlled by the second set of scan lines.
Kwak shows that first scan signals comprise signals to activate emission of subpixels controlled by the first set of scan lines (i.e. odd scan lines in the same column will activate red subpixels, Fig. 1 and paras. 35 and 45); and the second scan signals comprise signals to activate emission of subpixels controlled by the second set of scan lines (i.e. even scan lines S2, S4, etc., Fig. 1 and paras. 35 and 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Park with those of Kwak because designing the system in this way allows the device to produce higher quality images (para. 38).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights