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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, drawn to Fig. 2, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/08/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
At least one information disclosure statement fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but unless accompanied by a translation or a concise explanation of relevance, the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Examiner suggests filing an English language translation of each document not in the English language.
At least one information disclosure statement fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but information referred to therein but not provided has not been considered. The Examiner suggests filing a copy of any missing document(s).
At least one information disclosure statement fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but some document(s) not listed each with its own blank space have not been considered. The Examiner suggests listing written opinion documents separately from search report documents, for example.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the feature(s) “first refresh rate” and “second refresh rate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “first refresh rate … is defined” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “second refresh rate … is identified” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “informing” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fewer than all lines are “durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. … heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). See Fig. 2, for example, wherein some portions of pulse signal 203 are ill-defined. It is unclear how many pulses are shown, numerous pulses appearing as phantom lines, rather than as well-defined lines.
Shading does not conform to the standards set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(m), which recites “shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. ... Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. ... Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.” See Fig. 2, for example, wherein shading obfuscates text within a period between 216 and 218.
Fewer than all drawings are “grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h).
Drawing sheet numbers (“1/10”, “2/10”, etc.) are not “clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(t).
The relationship (if any) between Fig. 8 and other timing diagrams is unclear.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of trade names or a marks used in commerce (e.g., HDMI), have been noted in this application. The term(s) should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term(s) should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include proper symbols indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term(s).
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-4 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “before providing… a first command … enable periodic transmissions of a pulse signal”. It is unclear whether such a first command must eventually be provided (i.e., provided after enabling a pulse signal), or whether it would be sufficient to merely enable a pulse signal at a time when no first command had thus far been provided.
Independent claim 1 recites “a second command for a display on state of the display”. This is misdescriptive of Fig. 2, wherein power up 212 (i.e., display on) occurs long before a second command occurs. For examination purposes, the limitation “a second command for a display on state of the display” is interpreted as a second command occurring any time after a power up occurs.
Independent claim 1 recites “based on informing, to the display driver circuitry, using the periodic transmissions, a timing of an emission synchronization signal for the at least one processor usable for an image transmission … provide, to the display driver circuitry, a second command”. This is misdescriptive of Fig. 2, to which the elected species is drawn. See pulse signal 203 and emission synchronization signal 202, which appear no different immediately before, during, nor immediately after second command. It is unclear in what sense the provision of the second command could be construed as “based on informing… a timing of an emission synchronization signal”, in view of the establishment of emission synchronization signal 202 timing way back at 241.
Claim 2 recites “based on a vertical synchronization signal … obtained according to the timing … based on the period transmissions, execute displaying of a black image on the display panel”. This is misdescriptive of Fig. 2, to which the elected species is drawn. See vertical synchronization signal 204, whose timing is obtained at 241, when panel initial frame 216 becomes displayed, whereas a black image doesn’t become displayed until later, at 217.
Claim 2 recites “the execution”. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to “the instructions, when executed” as recited in claim 1, or whether this limitation refers to “execute displaying of a black image” as recited in claim 2.
Claim 2 recites “extend the synchronization signal”. It is unclear what “extend” means in this context. See Fig. 2, wherein emission synchronization signal appears no different throughout black display. Furthermore, vertical synchronization signal seems to remain zero between the start and the end of black display. Moreover, it is unclear whether this limitation refers to the “vertical synchronization signal” or to the “emission synchronization signal” or to some other synchronization signal.
Claim 2 recites “while the black image is maintained on the display panel, receive an image transmitted … based on the emission synchronization signal”. This is misdescriptive of Fig. 2, to which the elected species is drawn. First image doesn’t appear to be transmitted based on the emission synchronization signal, insofar as no change appears in emission synchronization signal immediately before, during, nor immediately after the beginning of first image transmission at 219. Furthermore, black display hold 218 appears to end as first image transmission 219 begins.
Claim 2 recites “in response to the image, obtain the vertical synchronization signal for the display driver circuitry”. This is misdescriptive of Fig. 2, to which the elected species is drawn. First image is not entirely known until receipt is finished at the end of 219; however, vertical synchronization signal 204 had already been obtained by the display driver at the beginning of 219. For this reason, obtaining the vertical synchronization is not “in response to the image”.
Claim 4 recites “a first refresh rate for the displaying of the black image is defined … before the black image is displayed”. This is misdescriptive of Fig. 2, to which the elected species is drawn. No such definition step appears before black image becomes displayed at the beginning of 217.
Claim 4 recites “identified by the at least one processor from among the at least one processor and the display driver circuitry”. The meaning of from among the at least one processor and the display driver circuitry is unclear. The Examiner suggests --identified by the at least one processor
Other elected claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Regarding claims 2-4: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (KR 10-2015-0078981 A).
As recited in independent claim 1, Lee et al show an electronic device (see Fig. 1, for example) comprising: at least one processor (including 60) (inherently) comprising processing circuitry; memory (inherently) comprising one or more storage media storing instructions; and a display (including 100 and 10) including display driver circuitry (including 20) and a display panel 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, (necessarily) cause the electronic device to: before (insofar as the CLK pulses cause the Sleep Out, said CLK pulses must necessarily be enabled before display circuitry 20 receives the CLK pulses which cause the Sleep Out) providing, to the display driver circuitry 20, a first command (the beginning of CLK pulses, for example) for a sleep out state (see “Sleep Out” in Fig. 2) of the display (including 100 and 10), enable (insofar as CLK pulses could not possibly begin until after CLK pulses are enabled) periodic transmissions (see CLK pulses in Fig. 2, for example) of a pulse signal (see CLK pulses in Fig. 2, for example) from the at least one processor (including 60) to the display driver circuitry 20 to synchronize at least one timing (see Source IC Normal Data out timing in Fig. 2, for example) for the display driver circuitry 20 with at least one timing (CLK pulses, for example) for the at least one processor 60; and based on informing (to the extent understood), to the display driver circuitry 20, using the periodic transmissions (see CLK pulses in Fig. 2), a timing of an emission synchronization signal 202 for the at least one processor 60 usable (though not used until 234) for an image transmission (see first image 234, for example) from the at least one processor 60 to the display driver circuitry 20, provide, to the display driver circuitry 20, a second command (see second command in Fig. 2) for a display on state (insofar as power up 212 occurred earlier than second command in Fig. 2) of the display (including 100 and 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
03/04/2026