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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-7-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s chief argument is Kitada appears to be on page 12 and that the Kitada and Shimizu references allegedly do not teach “retrieving ... a corresponding gray level for the input gray level, the corresponding gray level having been selected from a plurality of candidate gray levels to lower a difference” and “adjusting input display data using the corresponding gray level”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kitada as cited describes correction coefficient information to produce frequency-specific correction data in part due to the input image and reference correction as described with at least Figures 7-8B. Shimizu describes gamma shift correction across different refresh rates as described in at least Figs. 4A-4B and 7A-7B. Taken together, the two references describe adjusting input data corresponding to gray level forth input gray level as both references maintain a set number of grayscale/gradation levels for adjustment to preserve uniformity in the image across frequencies that appears to be claimed in claim 1. This concept is reinforced when viewing Applicant’s Figure 4 and Shimizu’s Figure 4B side-by-side reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image1.png
582
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For at least these reasons, the rejection is respectfully maintained. In the interests of furthering prosecution, Examiner notes broadest reasonable interpretation of “candidate gray levels” includes the other levels in the table.
As always, the Examiner encourages the Applicant to initiate an Applicant interview to clarify ambiguities in claim interpretation. Examiner notes that any omitted arguments not specifically addressed are also traversed and not to be interpreted as an agreement.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (US App. 20180254010 hereinafter referred to as “Kit”) in view of Shimizu et al. (US App. 20160093248).
In regard to claim 1, Kit teaches a computer-implemented method (see at least Abstract and Para. 28) comprising: identifying an input gray level while a display panel of a device is operating at a first refresh rate (see Figs. 4A-5 gradation determination and conversion after determining frequency); retrieving, from a storage at the device, a corresponding gray level for the input gray level, the corresponding gray level having been selected from a plurality of candidate gray levels to lower a difference between a first measured optical property of the display panel (See Figs. 7, 8A, 8B and Para. 62 measured luminance and correction based on reference correction) for the input gray level at the first refresh rate and a second measured optical property of the display panel for the corresponding gray level selected from the plurality of candidate gray levels at the second refresh rate (see Para. 38 and 70 correction is done to suppress changes in gradation characteristic/luminance due to changing driving frequency).
Kit is not relied upon to teach adjusting input display data using the corresponding gray level for the input gray level; and transitioning, based on the adjusted input display data, the display panel from the first refresh rate to the second refresh rate.
However, Shi teaches adjusting input display data using the corresponding gray level for the input gray level (see Figs. 4A-4B and Para. 78); and transitioning, based on the adjusted input display data (see Para. 78-79), the display panel from the first refresh rate to the second refresh rate (see Figs. 4A-4B different luminance for same grayscale level across different refresh rates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi to maintain picture quality even if refresh rate is varied (see Para. 5).
In regard to claim 12, Kit teaches a computing device (see at least Abstract and Para. 28) comprising: a display panel; one or more processors; and data storage, wherein the data storage has stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to carry out operations (see Para. 1) comprising: identifying an input gray level while the display panel is operating at a first refresh rate (see Figs. 4A-5 gradation determination and conversion after determining frequency); retrieving, from a storage at the computing device, a corresponding gray level for the input gray level, the corresponding gray level having been selected from a plurality of candidate gray levels to lower a difference between a first measured optical property of the display panel( See Figs. 7, 8A, 8B and Para. 62 measured luminance and correction based on reference correction) for the input gray level at the first refresh rate and a second measured optical property of the display panel for the corresponding gray level selected from the plurality of candidate gray levels at the second refresh rate (see Para. 38 and 70 correction is done to suppress changes in gradation characteristic/luminance due to changing driving frequency).
Kit is not relied upon to teach adjusting input display data using the corresponding gray level for the input gray level; and transitioning, based on the adjusted input display data, the display panel from the first refresh rate to the second refresh rate.
However, Shi teaches adjusting input display data using the corresponding gray level for the input gray level (see Figs. 4A-4B and Para. 78); and transitioning, based on the adjusted input display data (see Para. 78-79), the display panel from the first refresh rate to the second refresh rate (see Figs. 4A-4B different luminance for same grayscale level across different refresh rates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi to maintain picture quality even if refresh rate is varied (see Para. 5).
In regard to claim 20, Kit teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see Para. 1) comprising: identifying an input gray level while a display panel of a device is operating at a first refresh rate (see Figs. 4A-5 gradation determination and conversion after determining frequency); retrieving, from a storage at the device, a corresponding gray level for the input gray level, the corresponding gray level having been selected from a plurality of candidate gray levels to lower a difference between a first measured optical property of the display panel (See Figs. 7, 8A, 8B and Para. 62 measured luminance and correction based on reference correction) for the input gray level at the first refresh rate and a second measured optical property of the display panel for the corresponding gray level selected from the plurality of candidate gray levels at the second refresh rate (see Para. 38 and 70 correction is done to suppress changes in gradation characteristic/luminance due to changing driving frequency).
Kit is not relied upon to teach adjusting input display data using the corresponding gray level for the input gray level; and transitioning, based on the adjusted input display data, the display panel from the first refresh rate to the second refresh rate.
However, Shi teaches adjusting input display data using the corresponding gray level for the input gray level (see Figs. 4A-4B and Para. 78); and transitioning, based on the adjusted input display data (see Para. 78-79), the display panel from the first refresh rate to the second refresh rate (see Figs. 4A-4B different luminance for same grayscale level across different refresh rates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi to maintain picture quality even if refresh rate is varied (see Para. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Kit in view of Shi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Shi further teaches wherein the first refresh rate is 60 Hz and wherein the second refresh rate is 90 Hz (see Figs. 4A-4B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the refresh rates of Shi to maintain picture quality even if refresh rate is varied (see Para. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Kit in view of Shi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kit further teaches wherein the first measured optical property and the second measured optical property comprise a luminance of the display panel (see Para. 63 luminance or chromaticity measurement).
Regarding claim 10, Kit in view of Shi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kit further teaches wherein the first measured optical property and the second measured optical property comprise a color of the display panel (see Para. 63 luminance or chromaticity measurement).
Regarding claim 18, Kit in view of Shi teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Kit further teaches wherein the first measured optical property and the second measured optical property comprise one of: (1) a luminance of the display panel, or (ii) a color of the display panel (see Para. 63 luminance or chromaticity measurement).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 13-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (US App. 20180254010 hereinafter referred to as “Kit”) in view of Shimizu et al. (US App. 20160093248) in further view of Ranjan et al. (US App. 20210201732 hereinafter referred to as “Ran”).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Kit in view of Shi teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 12 respectively. Kit and Shi are not relied upon to teach identifying a rate change triggering event while the display panel is operating at the first refresh rate, and wherein the transitioning of the display panel from the first refresh rate to the second refresh rate is performed in response to the identifying of the rate change triggering event.
However, Ran teaches identifying a rate change triggering event while the display panel is operating at the first refresh rate, and wherein the transitioning of the display panel from the first refresh rate to the second refresh rate is performed in response to the identifying of the rate change triggering event (see Para. 8, 10, 12, 22-25 dynamically adjust refresh rate for device usage applications or user can select it as a mode).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi with the specified changes in refresh rates of Ran to maintain user experience (See Abstract).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Kit in view of Shi and Ran teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 13 respectively. Ran further teaches wherein the rate change triggering event is initiated by a process running on the device (see Para. 8, 10, 12, 22-25 dynamically adjust refresh rate for device usage applications or user can select it as a mode).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi with the specified changes in refresh rates of Ran to maintain user experience (See Abstract).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Kit in view of Shi and Ran teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 13 respectively. Ran further teaches wherein the rate change triggering event comprises a user interaction with the display panel (see Para. 8, 10, 12, 22-25 dynamically adjust refresh rate for device usage applications or user can select it as a mode).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi with the specified changes in refresh rates of Ran to maintain user experience (See Abstract).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Kit in view of Shi and Ran teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 respectively. Ran further teaches further comprising: after transitioning the display panel from the first refresh rate to the second refresh rate, detecting that the rate change triggering event has ended; and in response to detecting that the rate change triggering event has ended, transitioning the display panel from the second refresh rate to the first refresh rate (see Para. 8, 10, 12, 22-25, 30 dynamically adjust refresh rate for device usage applications or user can select it as a mode as well as determine power state of on battery or charging station for increasing or decreasing refresh rate to conserve power).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi with the specified changes in refresh rates of Ran to maintain user experience (See Abstract).
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (US App. 20180254010 hereinafter referred to as “Kit”) in view of Shimizu et al. (US App. 20160093248) in further view of Ranjan et al. (US App. 20210201732 hereinafter referred to as “Ran”) in further view of Huang et al. (US App. 20160173862 hereinafter referred to as “Hua”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Kit in view of Shi and Ran teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 13 respectively. Kit in view of Shi and Ran are not relied upon to teach wherein the rate change triggering event is based on an environmental state measurement associated with an environment around the computing device.
Ran as discussed above does disclose the concept of triggering events. However, Hua teaches wherein the rate change triggering event is based on an environmental state measurement associated with an environment around the computing device (see Para. 121 ambient light sensor to adjust display brightness).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi with the specified changes in refresh rates of Ran and ambient sensor of Hua to prevent degrading image for the displayed image (See Para. 6). Examiner also notes Kit as modified by Shi and Ran discloses the base product/process of refresh frequency changing based on detected triggered events while Hua teaches the known technique of ambient light as a trigger so as to yield predictable results of changing the display based on ambient light in the device of Kit as modified by Shi and Ran.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (US App. 20180254010 hereinafter referred to as “Kit”) in view of Shimizu et al. (US App. 20160093248) in further view of Wang et al. (US App. 20160093239).
Regarding claim 7, Kit in view of Shi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kit and Shi are not relied upon to teach wherein the input gray level is based on determining that the first measured optical property is less than an optical threshold.
However, Wang teaches wherein the input gray level is based on determining that the first measured optical property is less than an optical threshold (See Abstract, and Para. 47).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi with the thresholds of Wang for optimal display quality (See Para. 3).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (US App. 20180254010 hereinafter referred to as “Kit”) in view of Shimizu et al. (US App. 20160093248) in further view of Shin (US App. 20170061934).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Kit in view of Shi teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 12 respectively. Kit and Shi are not relied upon to teach wherein the storage comprises a boot image of the device. However, Shin teaches wherein the storage comprises a boot image of the device (see Para. 161).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Kit to include the adjusted data of Shi with the boot image of Shin so as to boot the device with instructions from the image (See Para. 161, 162).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: Lin et al. (US App. 20210201793) describing reducing brightness changes due to refresh rate and Ha et al. (US App. 20190180695) describing luminance based on frequency adjustments.
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 MATTHEW YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/MATTHEW YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights