DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 19, the limitation of “wherein the timing controller is configured to generate the data signal to cause a first sub-pixel …” isn’t consistent with specification. For example, In fig. 6, the data signal to cause a first sub-pixel is VData generated by data converter 160. In fig. 6, the timing controller 141 generates IDATA2. The IDATA2 is not the signal to cause a first sub-pixel to output light.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the claim recites “a data driver to provide a data signal … a data converter to generate the data signal …” It is clear that the generated data signal is different from the data signal provided from data driver, therefore they are two different signals.
Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1, thus they are rejected for the same reason as above.
Claim 19 has the same issue where the data signal are two different signals. For example, IDATA2 versus VData as shown in fig. 6.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19, thus it is rejected for the same reason as above.
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, 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 1-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 11,468,829) in view of Lin (US 12,254,815).
Referring to claims 1 and 19, Kim discloses a display device (fig. 1, display device 1) comprising:
a display panel (fig. 1, display panel 160) including a plurality of pixels (fig. 1, sP sub-pixel; 5:38-42, pixel);
a scan driver (fig. 1, gate driver 130) to provide a scan signal (fig. 1, GL11/GL21~GL1n/GL2n) to the display panel;
a data driver (fig. 1, data driver 140) to provide a data signal (fig. 1, DL1/SL1~DLm/SLm) corresponding to each of the plurality of pixels to the display panel;
a timing controller (fig. 1, timing controller 120) to control driving of the scan driver (fig. 1, CONT1) and the data driver (fig. 1, CONT2).
Lin discloses a data converter (fig. 6, source driver 34) to convert image data output from the timing controller (fig. 6, timing controller 32) to generate the data signal (fig. 6, to display panel 10),
wherein the data converter is to generate the data signal to cause a first sub-pixel (3:60-4:5, first sub-pixel 121 in edges 101/102), among sub-pixels (fig. 1, sub-pixels 121/122/123) included in pixels (fig. 1, pixel unit 12) disposed in an edge area (fig. 1, edges 101/102/103/104; fig. 5) of the display panel, to output light in a first frame (fig. 5, display panel 10 with no reduced edge brightness) in a frame group (fig. 5, display panel 10 with different edge brightness) including a plurality of frames and not to output light in a second frame (fig. 5, display panel 10 with reduced edge brightness; 4:10-13, reduce at least 50% brightness includes 100% reduction) in the frame group.
Kim and Lin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in display panel. Before the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Kim and Lin before him or her to modify the display panel of Kim to include the reducing brightness on edge sub-pixels of Lin, thereafter the display panel’s edge pixels have reduced brightness. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantages of improved color edge phenomenon (1:46-59) as suggested by Lin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim with Lin to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As to claims 2 and 20, Lin discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the data converter is to generate the data signal to cause a second sub-pixel (3:60-4:5, second sub-pixels in edges 103/104), among the sub-pixels included in the pixels disposed in the edge area, not to output light in the first frame (fig. 5, display panel 10 with reduced edge brightness). (see TSM analysis above)
As to claim 3, Lin discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the data converter is to generate the data signal to cause the second sub-pixel to output light in the second frame (fig. 5, display panel 10 with no reduced edge brightness). (see TSM analysis above)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The further limiting on the sub-pixels as in claim 4, and further limiting on the data converter as in claim 5, 11 and 15-16.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) 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 is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“a scan driver” in claims 1 and 19. For example, corresponding to scan driver 121 in fig. 1
“a data driver” in claims 1 and 19. For example, corresponding to data driver 131 in fig. 1
“a timing controller” in claims 1 and 19. For example, corresponding to timing controller 141 in fig. 1.
“a data converter” in claim 1. For example, corresponding to data converter 160 in fig. 1.
“an edge data determiner 162”, “a weight generator 164” and “a data generator 166” in claim 16. Elements are found corresponding in figs. 7 and 12.
“a digital-to-analog converter 186” in claim 17 and corresponding in fig. 7.
“a data scaler 188” in claim 18 and corresponding in fig. 12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 .
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See M.P.E.P 707.05(c).
US 11,488,506 discloses display panel edges and sub-pixels.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights