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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) is/are: “main module” in claim 1 (support in paragraphs 31-32 of specification) and “display module” in claim 20 (support in specification paragraph 33).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 14-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baek (US 2013/0113777).
Regarding claim 14, Baek discloses A display device comprising:
a display module (fig. 1(121)); and
a main module (fig. 1(110)) configured to transmit video signals to the display module so that a video is displayed on the display module ([0039, 0056]), and
wherein the main module is configured to:
transmit test signals for detecting a transmission environment of the video signals to the
display module ([0039, 0041, 0043] test patterns are transmitted and used for error checking).
Regarding claim 15, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: adjust a video signal transmitted to the display module based on a feedback signal responsive to the test signals received from the display module ([0075, 0116]).
Regarding claim 16, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: transmit the test signals between the video signals ([0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: transmit the test signals during blank period between transmission periods of the video signals, wherein the blank period is a period that the video signals are not transmitted ([0074]).
Regarding claim 18, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: continuously adjust a signal compensation level of the video signal by transmitting the test signals at each blank period ([0075, 0115, 0116]).
Regarding claim 19, Baek discloses wherein the blank period is a period in which a training pattern for generating a reference signal of clocks or a control signal (CTL) is transmitted ([0041]).
Regarding claim 20, Baek discloses wherein each of the test signals includes a preset pattern, and the display module is configured to: transmit the feedback signal including an error detection result of the preset pattern to the main module ([0043, 0048, 0078]).
Regarding claim 21, Baek discloses wherein each of the test signals includes a different pattern ([0048, 0098, 0105]).
Regarding claim 22, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: transmit a first test signal including a first pattern and then change the signal compensation level of the video signals to a first level when an error is detected in the first test signal, and transmit a second test signal including a second pattern with a higher recognition difficulty than the first pattern if an error is not detected in the first test signal and then change the signal compensation level of the video signals to a second level lower than the first level when an error is detected in the second test signal ([0062, 0078, 0091]).
Regarding claim 23, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: change the signal compensation level by changing at least one of the signal level and a pre-emphasis value ([0043]).
Regarding claim 24, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: transmit a first feedback signal and a second feedback signal, respectively, in response to the first test signal and the second test signal, to the main module ([0062, 0078, 0091]).
Regarding claim 25, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: transmit one feedback signal responsive to the first test signal and the second test signal to the main module ([0075, 0091, 0116]).
Regarding claim 26, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: adjust the signal compensation level of the video signals and then transmit a response signal to the display module ([0075, 0116]).
Regarding claim 27, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: transmit a third test signal including a third pattern with a higher recognition difficulty than the second pattern if an error is not detected in the second test signal and then change the signal compensation level of the video signals to a third level lower than the second level when an error is detected in the third test signal ([0048, 0050, 0082]).
Regarding claim 28, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: maintain the signal compensation level when the error is not detected ([0054]).
Regarding claim 29, Baek discloses wherein the main module is configured to: adjust the signal compensation level by transmitting test signals to the display module starting from an order of low recognition difficulty ([0082]).
Regarding claim 30, Baek discloses wherein the main module comprises: a panel (fig. 1(170)), a gate driver ([0056]) for supplying a scan signal to the panel, and a source driver ([0057]) for supplying a video signal to the panel, wherein the main module includes a timing controller for controlling the gate driver and the source driver (fig. 1(110)).
Regarding claim 31, Baek discloses wherein source driver is configured to recognize high or low in the test signals ([0078, 0086, 0103]).
Regarding claim 32, Baek discloses wherein the source drive is configured to recognize high, the longer a duration of high, the lower a recognition difficulty of a pattern included in the test signals and the shorter the duration of high, the higher the recognition difficulty of the pattern included in the test signals ([0048, 0082, 0086]).
Regarding claim 33, Baek discloses wherein the source drive is configured to recognize low, the longer a duration of low, the lower a recognition difficulty of a pattern included in the test signals and the shorter the duration of low, the higher the recognition difficulty of the pattern included in the test signals ([0082, 0101, 0103]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights