CTNF 18/966,226 CTNF 90653 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 03, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. PNG media_image1.png 814 602 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 902 510 media_image2.png Greyscale Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) Independent claim 1 recites a method of testing a compensation operation for a display device (a process). (Step 2A: Prong 1) The limitations of claim 1 of the steps of generating and comparing along with their respective limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind and/or covers performance of the limitation through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps/limitations above from practically being performed in the mind and/or through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations. For example, the “generating” step and “comparing” step along with their respective limitations encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) and/or through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations to generate red, green and blue compensation data based on luminance and color coordinates of the captured image and compare a delta value with a threshold value to test whether the compensation operation is a miscompensation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A: Prong 2) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 does not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of providing test data including a first red test data, first green test data, and first blue test data to the display device and capturing an image displayed by the display device based on the test data. The providing step and capturing step are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of providing test data to a display device and capturing an image form the display device based on the test data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2B) Claim(s) 1 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above (see Step 2A: Prong 2), claim 1 does contain additional elements. The additional elements of the providing step and the capturing step, along with their associated limitations, provide no indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic computer component or a process used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2 , this claim further adds to the comparing step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 3 , this claim further adds to the comparing step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 4 , this claim further adds to the comparing step of claims 1 and 3. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 5 , this claim has additional elements that further add to the display device. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 6 , this claim further adds to the comparing step of claims 1 and 5. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 7 , this claim further adds to the comparing step of claims 1 and 5. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 8 , this claim has additional elements that further add to the display device. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 9 , this claim further adds to the comparing step of claims 1 and 8. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 10 , this claim further adds to the comparing step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 11 , this claim further adds to the comparing step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12-20 are indicated as allowable subject matter. 13-03 AIA The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding independent claim 12 , the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest: “a compensation operation tester configured to compare a delta value, calculated based on second red test data to which the red compensation data is applied, second green test data to which the green compensation data is applied, and second blue test data to which the blue compensation data is applied, with a threshold value to test whether the compensation operation is a miscompensation,” when used in combination with all other limitations of claim 12. Claims 13-20 are allowed for depending on claim 12 . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song discloses “OLED display panel and driving method for the same and driving circuit” (see US2019/0066575) Cha et al. discloses “Display device and optical compensation method of a display device” (see US2017/0206825) Wei et al. discloses “System and method for light compensation in a video panel” (see US2013/0107060) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm. 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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. /DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/966,226 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/966,226 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/966,226 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/966,226 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/966,226 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/966,226 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights