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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s foreign priority claim, for U.S. Application No. 18/986,342, based on a foreign application filed on 01/16/2024.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–10 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 are rejected.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 are objected to.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim 8 recites that “the third driving frequency is less than the second resolution.” It is unclear how a driving frequency is compared to a resolution, as these terms refer to different types of quantities. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are unclear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s), and amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Overview of Grounds of Rejection
Ground of Rejection
Claim(s)
Statute(s)
Reference(s)
Ground 1
1, 2
§ 103
Nho et al. in view of Borel et al., and further in view of Handjojo et al.
Ground 2
4, 5, 7
§ 103
You et al. in view of Handjojo et al., Borel et al., and Nho et al.
Ground 3
8
§ 112(b)
N/A
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 of this title, 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.
(Please see the cited paragraphs, sections, pages, or surrounding text in the references for the paraphrased content.)
Ground of Rejection 1
Claims 1, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nho et al. (US20160196802A1) in view of Borel et al. (US20180007355A1), and further in view of Handjojo et al. (US20020171759A1).
As per Claim 1, Nho teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “A display device comprising:”
Nho et al. teaches an electronic device having “a variable refresh rate display” and further discloses “display 14.” Nho et al., ¶¶ [0007], [0018]. Thus, Nho teaches the claimed display device.
Nho teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“a display panel; and”
Nho et al. teaches that “display 14 may have an array of pixels 22 for displaying images for a user,” wherein the pixels may be arranged in rows and columns. Nho et al., ¶ [0027]. This teaches the claimed display panel.
Nho alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Borel and Handjojo, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Nho, Borel and Handjojo teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “a display driving circuit configured to analyze a motion degree of an input video signal and a detail degree of the input video signal to determine a resolution and a driving frequency, and display an output video signal having the determined resolution and the driving frequency on the display panel,”
Nho et al. teaches display/control circuitry that analyzes image content and controls refresh rate. Nho states that “Display driver circuitry may be used to control the operation of pixels 22,” and that “Control circuitry 16 may analyze images that are to be displayed on display 14 by examining the contents of frame buffer 54” to determine whether content “contains moving content or static content.” Nho et al., ¶¶ [0028], [0032]. Nho further teaches refreshing the display at “various different refresh rates” and displaying static content at a “relatively low refresh rate.” Nho et al., ¶¶ [0029], [0033].
Nho does not directly teach determining both resolution and driving frequency based on both motion and detail. Borel et al. teaches this missing aspect by disclosing that content is designated as “static scenes with high resolution or scenes with motion,” with static scenes encoded in “Low Frame Rate (LFR) mode” and motion scenes in “High Frame Rate (HFR) mode.” Borel et al., ¶ [0006]. Borel further teaches “static scenes of video with high resolution in a Low Frame Rate (LFR) mode (i.e. 4K/30 fps)” and motion scenes in “High Frame rate (HFR) mode (i.e. HD/120 fps).” Borel et al., ¶ [0012].
Handjojo et al. supports the detail degree analysis by teaching that “The vertical detail of the scene determines the extent of the VT spectrum support,” and that it is logical “to adapt the interpolation strategy to motion and/or vertical detail.” Handjojo et al., ¶¶ [0018], [0038].
Nho, Borel and Handjojo teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “wherein when the motion degree of a first input video signal is less than or equal to a first time reference value and the detail degree of the first input video signal is greater than a space reference value,”
Nho et al. teaches the low-motion condition by detecting static or nearly static content. Nho states that control circuitry analyzes image data to determine whether content is “moving or static,” and that static or nearly static content is displayed at a lower refresh rate. Nho et al., ¶ [0033].
Handjojo et al. teaches motion/detail-based thresholds or decision criteria. Handjojo states that a motion detector switches or fades between modes, and that an important aspect is determining “the switching threshold or the fading function.” Handjojo et al., ¶ [0054]. Handjojo also teaches adapting processing based on “motion and/or vertical detail.” Handjojo et al., ¶ [0038].
Borel et al. further teaches the same content category by identifying “static scenes with high resolution” as content encoded in LFR mode. Borel et al., ¶ [0006]. Thus, the combination teaches a case where motion is low and detail is high.
Nho and Borel teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “the display driving circuit displays a first output video signal having a first resolution and a first driving frequency on the display panel,”
Nho et al. teaches that display driver circuitry supplies image data to the display and allows the data to be refreshed at “various different refresh rates.” Nho et al., ¶ [0029]. Borel et al. teaches the corresponding resolution/frequency output by disclosing “static scenes of video with high resolution in a Low Frame Rate (LFR) mode (i.e. 4K/30 fps).” Borel et al., ¶ [0012]. Thus, the combined teachings provide an output video signal having a selected resolution and selected driving frequency.
Borel teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “and wherein the first resolution is equal to a reference resolution of the display panel,”
Borel et al. teaches retaining high/reference resolution for static content. Borel states that UHD content has “resolution as high as 4K” and that such content provides “a higher level of detail on static scenes.” Borel et al., ¶ [0002]. Borel further teaches that static scenes are transmitted “with high resolution” in LFR mode. Borel et al., ¶ [0012]. This corresponds to the claimed first resolution being equal to the reference resolution.
Nho and Borel teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “and the first driving frequency is less than or equal to a reference driving frequency of the display panel.”
Nho et al. teaches reducing refresh rate for static content: “When static content is present, the refresh rate of the display is reduced to lower power consumption.” Nho et al., ¶ [0004].
Nho further gives an example where “RRH is 60 Hz and RRL is 1 Hz.” Nho et al., ¶ [0037]. Borel is consistent, teaching static high-resolution content in “Low Frame Rate (LFR) mode (i.e. 4K/30 fps)” and motion content in “High Frame rate (HFR) mode.” Borel et al., ¶ [0012].
Therefore, the first driving frequency is less than or equal to the reference driving frequency.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Nho et al. with Borel et al. and Handjojo et al. because each reference addresses adaptive display/video processing based on motion and image-content characteristics. Nho reduces refresh rate for static content to conserve power; Borel selects high-resolution/low-frame-rate and lower-resolution/high-frame-rate modes based on static versus motion content; and Handjojo teaches motion/detail-based image analysis and threshold-based mode selection. Combining these teachings would have predictably improved power efficiency while preserving detail for static high-detail content and maintaining suitable performance for moving content.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 2, Nho alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Borel and Handjojo, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Handjojo teaches the following portion of Claim 2, which recites:
“The display device of claim 1, wherein: when the motion degree of a second input video signal is greater than the first time reference value and less than or equal to a second time reference value,”
Handjojo et al. teaches motion-level classification using a “hierarchical three-level motion detector that provides indications of static, slow, and fast motion.” The claimed range between first and second time reference values reasonably corresponds to Handjojo’s “slow motion” category, i.e., motion above static/low-motion but below fast motion. Handjojo et al., ¶ [0075].
Nho and Borel teach the following portion of Claim 2, which recites:
“the display driving circuit displays a second output video signal having a second resolution and a second driving frequency on the display panel,”
Nho et al. teaches display driver circuitry that refreshes image data on a display at selected refresh rates. Nho et al., ¶¶ [0029]-[0034]. Borel et al. teaches outputting/displaying different video modes based on static versus motion content.
Borel teach the following portion of Claim 2, which recites: “where the second resolution is less than the reference resolution and the second driving frequency is greater than the reference driving frequency;”
Borel teaches static scenes in “high resolution in a Low Frame Rate (LFR) mode (i.e. 4K/30 fps)” and motion scenes in “a High Frame rate (HFR) mode (i.e. HD/120 fps).” Thus, for motion content, the resolution is lower than the reference 4K resolution, while the driving/frame frequency is higher than the reference 30 fps frequency. Borel et al., ¶ [0012].
The rationale and motivation to combine the references as set forth for claim 1 are incorporated herein by reference for the present claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 2
Claims 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US20130293529A1) in view of Handjojo et al. (US20020171759A1), Borel et al. (US20180007355A1), and Nho et al. (US20160196802A1).
As per Claim 4, You et al. teaches the following portion of Claim 4, which recites: “A driving method of a display device, the driving method comprising”
You et al. teaches a display driving method by disclosing “a display screen including a display panel having a plurality of gate lines, and a gate driving circuit configured to drive the gate lines of the display panel.” You et al., ¶ [0010].
You et al. teach the following portion of Claim 4, which recites: “obtaining a previous frame data and a current frame data of an input video;”
You et al. teaches storing frame data for comparison, stating that the comparison circuit includes “a next frame unit, a current frame unit and a truth table unit of regions to be scanned,” and that it “stores the displaying picture and a next picture to be displayed.” You et al., ¶¶ [0056]-[0057].
You et al. teaches the following portion of Claim 4, which recites: “calculating a time change amount representing a motion degree of the input video by comparing the previous frame data and the current frame data for each scan line;”
You et al. teaches row/scan-line temporal comparison by disclosing a comparison circuit “adapted to compare image information of all the pixel points in the same row of adjacent frames of images to be displayed on the display panel.” You et al. further teaches that when row data is provided, the circuit outputs “a data stream of 0's and 1's” as the comparison result. You et al., ¶¶ [0030], [0059].
You alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Handjojo, Borel, and Nho, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Handjojo teaches the following portion of Claim 4, which recites: “calculating a space change amount representing a detail degree of the input video by comparing the current frame data for each adjacent scan line;”
Handjojo et al. teaches spatial/vertical detail and adjacent-line comparison by stating that “The vertical detail of the scene determines the extent of the VT spectrum support” and that processing may adapt to “motion and/or vertical detail.” Handjojo also teaches adjacent vertical-line processing using neighboring samples “F(x, y+1, t)” and “F(x, y-1, t).” Handjojo et al., ¶¶ [0018], [0038], [0193].
Borel and Nho teach the following portion of Claim 4, which recites: “determining a resolution and a driving frequency according to the time change amount and the space change amount;”
Borel et al. teaches determining resolution and frame/driving frequency based on static versus motion content, disclosing “static scenes of video with high resolution in a Low Frame Rate (LFR) mode (i.e. 4K/30 fps)” and motion scenes in “a High Frame rate (HFR) mode (i.e. HD/120 fps).” Borel et al., ¶ [0012]. Nho et al. further teaches determining refresh rate based on image motion/static content by analyzing image data to determine whether content is “moving or static” and displaying static content at a “relatively low refresh rate.” Nho et al., ¶¶ [0032]-[0033].
Nho and Borel teach the following portion of Claim 4, which recites: “and displaying an output video signal having the determined resolution and the determined driving frequency on a display panel of the display device.”
Nho et al. teaches display driver circuitry refreshing display image data at “various different refresh rates.” Nho et al., ¶ [0029]. Borel et al. teaches decoding and delivering LFR/HFR video to “display device 24.” Borel et al., ¶¶ [0020], [0029].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine You et al.’s row-by-row frame comparison and variable gate-driving frequency with Handjojo’s adjacent-line vertical-detail analysis, Borel’s resolution/frame-rate mode selection, and Nho’s variable refresh-rate display control to improve display power efficiency while preserving image detail and motion quality. The combination would have used known image-analysis and display-driving techniques for their established purposes and would have produced predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 5, You et al. teaches the following portion of Claim 5, which recites: “The driving method of the display device of claim 4, wherein, in the displaying the output video signal on the display panel,”
You et al. teaches a display-panel driving method and variable-frequency driving by comparing frame data and applying the resulting clock signal to a GIP circuit. You et al., ¶¶ [0056]-[0062].
You et al. teaches the following portion of Claim 5, which recites: “when the time change amount of a first input video signal is less than or equal to a first time reference value”
You et al. teaches comparing image information row-by-row between adjacent frames; when “image information of all the pixel points in the same row of the adjacent frames of the image are the same,” a first clock signal is used. This corresponds to low/no temporal change, i.e., time change amount less than or equal to a first time reference value. You et al., ¶ [0037].
You alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Handjojo, Borel, and Nho, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Handjojo teaches the following portion of Claim 5, which recites: “and the space change amount of the first input video signal is greater than a space reference value,”
Handjojo et al. teaches spatial/vertical-detail analysis, including that “The vertical detail of the scene determines the extent of the VT spectrum support” and that processing may adapt to “motion and/or vertical detail.” Handjojo et al., ¶¶ [0018], [0038]. It also teaches adjacent vertical-line processing using neighboring samples such as F(x, y−1, t) and F(x, y+1, t). Handjojo et al., ¶¶ [0058]-[0059], [0248].
Borel teaches the following portion of Claim 5, which recites: “the display device displays a first output video signal having a first resolution and a first driving frequency on the display panel,”
Borel et al. teaches displaying/decoding LFR and HFR video modes and delivering the resulting content to a display device. Borel et al., ¶¶ [0028]-[0030].
Borel teaches the following portion of Claim 5, which recites: “where the first resolution is equal to a reference resolution of the display panel”
Borel et al. teaches static/high-detail video at high/reference resolution, stating that UHD content has “resolution as high as 4K” and that static scenes are transmitted “with high resolution in a Low Frame Rate (LFR) mode (i.e. 4K/30 fps).” Borel et al., ¶¶ [0002], [0012].
Borel teaches the following portion of Claim 5, which recites: “and the first driving frequency is less than or equal to a reference driving frequency of the display panel.”
Borel et al. teaches the static/high-resolution mode at “Low Frame Rate (LFR) mode (i.e. 4K/30 fps)” while motion content uses “High Frame rate (HFR) mode (i.e. HD/120 fps).” Borel et al., ¶ [0012]. Nho et al. further teaches that static content is displayed at a lower refresh rate than moving content to conserve power. Nho et al., ¶¶ [0004], [0007], [0037].
The rationale and motivation to combine the references as set forth for claim 4 are incorporated herein by reference for the present claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 7, You et al. teaches the following portion of Claim 7, which recites:
“A display device comprising: a display panel; and a display driving circuit”
You et al. teaches a display screen including “a display panel” and “a gate driving circuit configured to drive the gate lines of the display panel.” You et al., ¶¶ [0009]-[0010], [0027]-[0030].
You alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Handjojo, Borel, and Nho, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
You, Handjojo, and Borel teach the following portion of Claim 7, which recites:
“configured to analyze a time change amount of an input video signal and a space change amount of the input video signal to determine a resolution and driving frequency”
You et al. teaches temporal/frame-change analysis by comparing “image information of all the pixel points in the same row of adjacent frames” and using the comparison result to adjust clock frequency / variable frequency driving. You et al., ¶¶ [0030]-[0033], [0059]-[0060]. Handjojo et al. teaches spatial/detail analysis, stating that “The vertical detail of the scene” affects video spectrum support and that processing may adapt to “motion and/or vertical detail.” Handjojo et al., ¶¶ [0036]-[0038]. Borel et al. teaches selecting different resolution/frequency modes, including static scenes at “4K/30 fps” and motion scenes at “HD/120 fps.” Borel et al., ¶ [0012].
Nho and Borel teach the following portion of Claim 7, which recites:
“and display an output video signal having the determined resolution and driving frequency on the display panel,”
Nho et al. teaches display driver circuitry refreshing data in a display at “various different refresh rates,” and Borel et al. teaches LFR/HFR output video modes delivered for display. Nho et al., ¶¶ [0029]-[0033]; Borel et al., ¶¶ [0012], [0020], [0029].
You, Borel, and Handjojo teach the following portion of Claim 7, which recites: “wherein when the time change amount of a first input video signal is less than or equal to a first time reference value and the space change amount of the first input video signal is greater than a space reference value, the display driving circuit displays a first output video signal having a first resolution and a first driving frequency on the display panel,”
You et al. teaches low/no temporal change when adjacent-frame row image information is the same. You et al., ¶¶ [0030]-[0031]. Handjojo et al. teaches spatial/vertical detail analysis.
Handjojo et al., ¶¶ [0036]-[0038]. Borel et al. teaches static/high-detail content displayed/transmitted at high resolution and low frame rate, e.g., 4K/30 fps. Borel et al., ¶ [0012].
Handjojo and Borel teach the following portion of Claim 7, which recites: “wherein when the time change amount of a second input video signal is greater than the first time reference value and less than or equal to a second time reference value, the display driving circuit displays a second output video signal having a second resolution and a second driving frequency on the display panel, and”
Handjojo et al. teaches a “hierarchical three-level motion detector” indicating “static, slow, and fast motion.” The claimed intermediate range corresponds to Handjojo’s slow-motion category. Handjojo et al., ¶ [0075]. Borel et al. teaches motion content in HFR mode, e.g., HD/120 fps, corresponding to a second output having lower resolution and higher driving/frame frequency relative to the static 4K/30 fps mode. Borel et al., ¶ [0012].
Borel teaches the following portion of Claim 7, which recites: “wherein the first resolution is equal to a reference resolution of the display panel, the first driving frequency is less than or equal to a reference driving frequency of the display panel, the second resolution is less than the reference resolution, and the second driving frequency is greater than the reference driving frequency.”
Borel et al. teaches static/high-detail scenes at “4K/30 fps” and motion scenes in “High Frame Rate (HFR) mode (i.e. HD/120 fps).” Thus, the second/motion output has a resolution less than the 4K/reference resolution and a driving frequency greater than the 30 fps/reference frequency. Borel et al., ¶ [0012].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine You et al.’s row-by-row temporal frame comparison and variable gate-driving frequency with Handjojo et al.’s motion/detail-based image analysis and Borel et al.’s resolution/frame-rate mode selection, as further supported by Nho et al.’s variable refresh-rate display control, to adapt display operation based on image motion and detail. The combination would have predictably reduced power consumption for static/high-detail content while preserving detail, and improved motion presentation by using lower resolution with higher driving frequency for moving content.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied upon in this action is as follows:
Patent Literature:
You et al. (US20130293529A1) — “Gate driving circuit of display panel and display screen with the same.”
Nho et al. (US20160196802A1) — “Low-Flicker Variable Refresh Rate Display.”
Borel et al. (US20180007355A1) — “High frame rate-low frame rate transmission technique.”
Handjojo et al. (US20020171759A1) — “Adaptive interlace-to-progressive scan conversion algorithm.”
Non-Patent Literature (NPL):
(none)
Note: A PDF copy of each NPL reference is attached with this Office Action. URLs are included for applicant convenience. If a link becomes unavailable in the future, the citation information may be used to locate the reference or access archived versions via the Wayback Machine.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed as follows:
Patent Literature:
Wu et al. (US20130141642A1) — “Adaptive control of display refresh rate based on video frame rate and power efficiency.”
Wu et al. (US20030218586A1) — “Simultaneous scan line driving method for a TFT LCD display.”
Non-Patent Literature (NPL):
(none)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADEEL BASHIR whose telephone number is (571) 270-0440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on (571) 276-7642. 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.
/ADEEL BASHIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights