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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/13/26 has been entered.
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
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 7, 8, and 12-14 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.
Claim 7 recites “the plurality of voltage adjustment gains” and “adjusting the data voltages”. Similarly, claim 8 recites “the plurality of voltage adjustment gains”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. No voltage adjustment gains or data voltages are previously claimed, and thus it is unclear to what “the plurality of voltage adjustment gains” and “the data voltages” are referring. Applicant claims “gray-level adjustment gains” and “target data voltages” (see claim 1), but these appear to be separate from “voltage adjustment gains” and “the data voltages”. The scope of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined by on of ordinary skill in the art, and thus claims 7 and 8 are indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner will assume Applicant intended to claim gray-level adjustment gains and display gray-level data, in line with claim 1 and similar to claims 4 and 5.
Claim 12 recites “a plurality of voltage adjustment gains of the RGB sub-pixels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No RGB sub-pixels are previously claimed, and thus it is unclear to what “the RGB sub-pixels” is referring. The scope of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined by on of ordinary skill in the art, and thus claims 12-14 are indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner will assume Applicant intended to claim “a plurality of voltage adjustment gains of RGB sub-pixels”.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2016/0358557) in view of Lo (US 2007/0216636).
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.
Lo teaches wherein the gray-level adjustment gains for sub-pixels of different colors are mutually independent (figs. 2-3, ¶ 20-26, image compensation value determined for each primary color by referring to an image compensation table according to PW adjustment).
Mori and Lo 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 voltage adjustment of Lo since such a modification maintains the consistency of pixel brightness or pixel color (Lo, ¶ 26) and provides power-saving and good frame quality (Lo, ¶ 9).
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).
Lo further teaches wherein each set of gray-level adjustment gains corresponding to a plurality of colors (figs. 2-3, ¶ 20-26, image compensation value determined for each primary color by referring to an image compensation table according to PW adjustment).
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 7, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Lo and Hyeon et al. (US 2023/0186837).
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 the 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.
Lo teaches wherein the adjustment gains for sub-pixels of different colors are mutually independent (figs. 2-3, ¶ 20-26, image compensation value determined for each primary color by referring to an image compensation table according to PW adjustment).
Mori and Lo 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 voltage adjustment of Lo since such a modification maintains the consistency of pixel brightness or pixel color (Lo, ¶ 26) and provides power-saving and good frame quality (Lo, ¶ 9).
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 Lo 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 Lo 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
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