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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action (see claim 9, “means for”; see ¶ 69 of Applicant’s specification, “hardware, firmware, software, or a combination thereof”). Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of the amendment filed 5/28/26, the rejection of claims 7, 8, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2016/0358557) in view of Matsui (US 2014/0218539).
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses a display control method for a display panel, comprising: acquiring duty ratio information for controlling a backlight module (abstract, fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 62, see also ¶ 78-85);
determining a plurality of target data voltages of RGB sub-pixels on the display panel based at least in part on the duty ratio information (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, voltage applied to liquid crystal based on an input signal, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, correction data is added to the original input image signal to input a voltage, correction data based on backlight duty ratio);
wherein determining the plurality of target data voltages of the RGB sub-pixels on the display panel based at least in part on the duty ratio information comprises: determining a plurality of gray-level adjustment gains of the RGB sub-pixels based on the duty ratio information (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, voltage applied to liquid crystal based on an input signal, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, correction data is added to the original input image signal to input a voltage, correction data based on backlight duty ratio);
adjusting display gray-level data of the RGB sub-pixels based on the gray-level adjustment gains (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, voltage applied to liquid crystal based on an input signal, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, correction data is added to the original input image signal to input a voltage, correction data based on backlight duty ratio);
and, generating the target data voltages of the RGB sub-pixels based on the adjusted display gray-level data (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, voltage applied to liquid crystal based on an input signal, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, corrected image signal output as image data to display device driving unit 53);
and, applying the target data voltages to data lines on the display panel to control the display panel for display (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, voltage applied to liquid crystal based on an input signal, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, corrected image signal output as image data to display device driving unit 53).
Mori fails to disclose wherein the gray-level adjustment gains for sub-pixels of different colors are mutually independent and are predetermined based on a standard color temperature.
Matsui teaches wherein the gray-level adjustment gains for sub-pixels of different colors are mutually independent and are predetermined based on a standard color temperature (figs. 1-2, ¶ 3-5, ¶ 30, white point chromaticity determined based on color balance of, e.g., RGB; see also ¶ 32-38, backlight driving level, e.g., pulse width, determined, video signal chromaticity corrected based on backlight driving level; see also ¶ 58-78, R, G, and B values corrected via correction coefficients to keep constant white point).
Mori and Matsui are both directed to image compensation and PWM driving for display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mori with the white point adjustment of Matsui since such a modification provides stability of color designated in advance is maintained for a long period of time (Matsui, ¶ 3, ¶ 78).
Regarding claim 4, Mori discloses wherein, determining the plurality of gray-level adjustment gains of the RGB sub-pixels based on the duty ratio information comprises: determining, based on the duty ratio information, a corresponding set of gray-level adjustment gains from a plurality of sets of gray-level adjustment gains (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, correction data is added to the original input image signal to input a voltage, correction data based on backlight duty ratio; e.g., red sub-pixel corrected),
and adjusting the display gray-level data of the RGB sub-pixels based on the gray-level adjustment gains comprises: adjusting the display gray-level data of the RGB sub-pixels based on the corresponding set of gray-level adjustment gains to obtain the adjusted display gray-level data (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, correction data is added to the original input image signal to input a voltage, correction data based on backlight duty ratio; e.g., red sub-pixel corrected).
Matsui further teaches wherein each set of gray-level adjustment gains corresponding to a plurality of colors (figs. 1-2, ¶ 3-5, ¶ 30, white point chromaticity determined based on color balance of, e.g., RGB; see also ¶ 32-38, backlight driving level, e.g., pulse width, determined, video signal chromaticity corrected based on backlight driving level; see also ¶ 58-78, R, G, and B values corrected via correction coefficients to keep constant white point).
Regarding claim 5, Mori discloses wherein determining the plurality of gray-level adjustment gains of the RGB sub-pixels based on the duty ratio information comprises: determining the gray-level adjustment gains by a pre-stored look-up table, wherein the look-up table is used to record each of a plurality of duty ratios and a corresponding set of gray-level adjustment gains (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, data table 10).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 7-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Matsui and Hyeon et al. (US 2023/0186837).
Regarding claim 7, Mori in view of Matsui fails to explicitly disclose determining, based on the duty ratio information, a corresponding set of voltage adjustment gains of the RGB sub-pixels from a plurality of sets of voltage adjustment gains, wherein each set of voltage adjustment gains corresponding to a plurality of colors; and, adjusting data voltages of the RGB sub-pixels based on the corresponding set of voltage adjustment gains to obtain the target data voltages.
Hyeon teaches determining, based on the duty ratio information, a corresponding set of voltage adjustment gains of the RGB sub-pixels from a plurality of sets of voltage adjustment gains, wherein each set of voltage adjustment gains corresponding to a plurality of colors (¶ 69-76, correction coefficients may be applied to pixel voltage value or to pixel grayscale value; see also ¶ 106 and ¶ 120-123);
and, adjusting data voltages of the RGB sub-pixels based on the corresponding set of voltage adjustment gains to obtain the target data voltages (¶ 69-76, correction coefficients may be applied to pixel voltage value or to pixel grayscale value; see also ¶ 106 and ¶ 120-123).
Mori in view of Matsui and Hyeon are both directed to image compensation for display devices with a backlight. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mori in view of Hyeon with the device of Hyeon since such a modification provides improved luminance uniformity (Hyeon, ¶ 69).
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 5 and 7.
Regarding claim 12, Mori discloses a display system, comprising: a display panel (abstract, fig. 1, ¶ 4, ¶ 31-39);
a backlight module (abstract, fig. 1, ¶ 4, ¶ 31-39);
a determination module, configured to: acquire duty ratio information for controlling the backlight module (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 62, see also ¶ 78-85);
determine a plurality of adjustment gains of RGB sub-pixels based on the duty ratio information (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, correction data is added to the original input image signal to input a voltage, correction data based on backlight duty ratio; e.g., red sub-pixel corrected);
and, a source driver, configured to adjust data voltages of the RGB sub-pixels based on the adjustment gains to obtain target data voltages, and to apply the target data voltages to data lines on the display panel to control the display panel for display (fig. 1, figs. 10-11, ¶ 4, voltage applied to liquid crystal based on an input signal, ¶ 31-39, ¶ 57, ¶ 70-85, correction data is added to the original input image signal to input a voltage, correction data based on backlight duty ratio; corrected image signal output as image data to display device driving unit 53).
Mori fails to disclose voltage adjustment gains, wherein the voltage adjustment gains for sub-pixels of different colors are mutually independent and are predetermined based on a standard color temperature.
Matsui teaches wherein the voltage adjustment gains for sub-pixels of different colors are mutually independent and are predetermined based on a standard color temperature (figs. 1-2, ¶ 3-5, ¶ 30, white point chromaticity determined based on color balance of, e.g., RGB; see also ¶ 32-38, backlight driving level, e.g., pulse width, determined, video signal chromaticity corrected based on backlight driving level; see also ¶ 58-78, R, G, and B values corrected via correction coefficients to keep constant white point).
Mori and Matsui are both directed to image compensation and PWM driving for display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mori with the white point adjustment of Matsui since such a modification provides stability of color designated in advance is maintained for a long period of time (Matsui, ¶ 3, ¶ 78).
Hyeon teaches voltage adjustment gains (¶ 69-76, correction coefficients may be applied to pixel voltage value or to pixel grayscale value; see also ¶ 106 and ¶ 120-123).
Mori in view of Matsui and Hyeon are both directed to image compensation for display devices with a backlight. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mori in view of Matsui with the device of Hyeon since such a modification provides improved luminance uniformity (Hyeon, ¶ 69).
Regarding claim 13, Mori discloses wherein the display system further comprises a timing controller, and the determination module is located inside the timing controller (fig. 10, ¶ 31, control circuit 5 with processing unit 51, see also ¶ 57).
Regarding claim 14, Mori fails to explicitly disclose wherein the determining module is located inside the source driver. However, Examiner takes official notice that the use of processing circuitry for data voltage adjustment inside a source driver is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mori with the well-known processing circuitry for data voltage adjustment inside a source driver since such a modification achieves the predictable result of minimizing circuitry and simplifying manufacturing. Applicant has not traversed Examiner’s assertion of official notice in the reply filed 10/15/25, and thus the use of processing circuitry for data voltage adjustment inside a source driver is taken to be admitted prior art [see MPEP 2144.03]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights