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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0061298 A1 to Cho et al. in view of WIPO 2022/0149009 to Kubo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0282155 A1 to Kubo will be used as the translation below).
As to claim 1, Cho discloses a display device comprising:
a display divided into a plurality of display areas (Fig. 1, paragraph 0041, where display (100) has a plurality of display modules (110-n));
a plurality of drivers connected to the plurality of display areas (Fig. 2A-2B, paragraphs 0045-0050, where driving modules (120-n) are connected to display modules (110-n));
memory storing instructions and current information corresponding to each of the plurality of display areas is stored (Fig. 2A, paragraphs 0053-0068, where storage (130) is the memory); and
one or more processors operatively connected to the display, the plurality of drivers, and the memory (Fig. 2A, paragraphs 0047-0068, processor (140), display (110), drivers (120), storage (130)),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the display device to:
input an image into a trained Artificial Intelligence (AI) model, and based on an output of the trained AI model indicating the image is a target for dynamic peaking application, identify whether a pixel value of the image is equal to or less than a threshold value (Fig. 9, paragraphs 0105-0113, where the target peak luminance level is determined in step (S920), where processor (140) is AI as it performs calculations and decision making), and
based on the pixel value being equal to or less than the threshold value:
identify a plurality of peak luminance levels of the plurality of display areas, and
control the plurality of drivers, based on the current information of the plurality of display areas stored in the memory, such that the plurality of display areas have the plurality of peak luminance levels (Fig. 9, paragraphs 0105-0113, where the peak luminance levels are determined and the display modules are controlled in steps (S920, S930)).
Cho is deficient in disclosing a trained Artificial Intelligence (AI) model comprising a plurality of neural network layers.
However, Kubo discloses a trained Artificial Intelligence (AI) model comprising a plurality of neural network layers (Fig. 16 and 17, paragraphs 0164-0167, where multilayer neural network (32) is a trained neural network).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the trained Artificial Intelligence (AI) model as taught by Cho by including the trained AI model comprising a plurality of neural network layers as taught by Kubo. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order for the neural network layers to associate a combination of data in order to generate a table (Kubo, paragraph 0167).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
As to claim 2, Cho discloses the display device, wherein each of the plurality of display areas comprises at least one of:
a pixel area unit corresponding to one driver IC, or
a display module unit corresponding to a plurality of driver ICs (Fig. 2A and 2B, paragraph 0052, where the driving module is an IC).
As to claim 9, Cho discloses the display device, wherein the current information comprises current control information according to luminance of a plurality of subpixels of one display area of the plurality of display areas (Fig. 2A and 2B, paragraphs 0055-0058, where the current control information is according to the luminance of each subpixel), and
wherein a subpixel of the plurality of subpixels comprises Red (R) LED, Green (G) LED, and Blue (B) LED subpixels (Fig. 2A, paragraph 0046, where the subpixels are red, green and blue).
As to claims 10, 11 and 18, Cho discloses limitations similar to claims 1, 2 and 9, respectively.
As to claim 19, Cho discloses limitations similar to claim 1. In addition, Cho discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer instructions recorded thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a display device divided into a plurality of display areas, causes the display device to: input an image (Fig. 2A, paragraphs 0053-0054 and 0117-0118, where storage (130) is the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 9-11, 18 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 ANEETA YODICHKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-9773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
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.
ANEETA YODICHKAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/ANEETA YODICHKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
