DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 15-16 and 18-19 are amended. Claims 2-4, 7, 12-14 and 17 are cancelled. Claim 21 is added. Claims 1, 5-6, 8-11, 15-16 and 18-21 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because a brief abstract of the technical disclosure in the specification does not commence on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD FOR REFRESHING PIXELS OF ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (OLED) DISPLAY OPERATING IN AN ALWAYS-ON MODE
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, the limitation “identifying a plurality of pixels of the display that are activated while the display is operating in the always-on mode;
dividing the plurality of pixels into at least two subsets of pixels including a first subset of pixels and a second subset of pixels, the first subset of pixels and the second subset of pixels being mutually exclusive,
wherein the dividing of the plurality of pixels into the at least two subsets of pixels comprises;
dividing the plurality of pixels displaying content into four-pixel units, wherein each of the four-pixel units is a two-by-two unit of pixels displaying content; and
assigning each pixel of each of the four-pixel units to one of the at least two subsets of pixels; and
sequentially activating and deactivating the plurality of subsets of pixels such that in each of the four-pixel units, three pixels are activated and one pixel is deactivated" should be
“identifying a plurality of pixels of the display that are activated while the display is operating in the always-on mode;
dividing the identified plurality of pixels into at least two subsets of pixels including a first subset of pixels and a second subset of pixels, the first subset of pixels and the second subset of pixels being mutually exclusive,
wherein the dividing of the identified plurality of pixels into the at least two subsets of pixels further comprises[[;]]:
dividing the identified plurality of pixels displaying content into four-pixel units,
wherein each of the four-pixel units is a two-by-two unit of pixels displaying the content; and
assigning each pixel of each of the four-pixel units to one of the at least two subsets of pixels; and
sequentially activating and deactivating the plurality of subsets of pixels such that in each of the four-pixel units, three pixels are activated and one pixel is deactivated".
As per claim 5, the limitation “wherein the at least two subsets of pixels comprises four subsets of pixels and wherein assigning each pixel of each of the four-pixel units to one of the at least two subsets of pixels comprises assigning each pixel in the four-pixel unit to a different subset of pixels of the at least two subsets of pixels” should be “wherein the at least two subsets of pixels comprises four subsets of pixels and wherein the assigning of each pixel of each of the four-pixel units to the one of the at least two subsets of pixels further comprises:
assigning each pixel in the four-pixel unit to a different subset of pixels of the at least two subsets of pixels”.
As per claim 6, the limitation “wherein the sequentially activating and deactivating the plurality of subsets of pixels comprises” should be “wherein the sequentially activating and deactivating of the plurality of subsets of pixels comprises”.
As per claim 11, the limitation “A computing device, the computing device comprising:
a display;
one or more processors; and
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
identifying a plurality of pixels of the display that are activated while the display is operating in an always-on mode;
dividing the plurality of pixels into at least two subsets of pixels, wherein the dividing of the plurality of pixels in at least two subsets of pixels of pixels comprises:
dividing the plurality of pixels displaying content into four-pixel units,
wherein each four-pixel unit is a two-by-two unit of pixels displaying content; and
assigning each pixel of each four-pixel unit to one of the at least two subsets of pixels; and
sequentially activating and deactivating the plurality of subsets of pixels such that in each of the four-pixel units, three pixels are activated an one pixel is deactivated” should be
“A computing device, wherein the computing device [[comprising]] comprises:
a display;
one or more processors; and
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
identifying a plurality of pixels of the display that are activated while the display is operating in an always-on mode;
dividing the identified plurality of pixels into at least two subsets of pixels, wherein the dividing of the identified plurality of pixels into the at least two subsets of pixels [[of pixels]] further comprises:
dividing the identified plurality of pixels displaying content into four-pixel units,
wherein each four-pixel unit is a two-by-two unit of pixels displaying the content; and
assigning each pixel of each four-pixel unit to one of the at least two subsets of pixels; and
sequentially activating and deactivating the plurality of subsets of pixels such that in each of the four-pixel units, three pixels are activated an one pixel is deactivated”.
As per claim 15, the limitation “wherein the at least two subsets of pixels comprises four subsets of pixels and-wherein assigning each pixel of each four-pixel unit to one of the four subsets of pixels comprises assigning each pixel in the four-pixel unit to a different subset of pixels of the four subsets of pixels” should be
“wherein the at least two subsets of pixels comprises four subsets of pixels and[[-]] wherein the assigning of each pixel of each four-pixel unit to one of the [[four]] at least two subsets of pixels further comprises:
assigning each pixel in the four-pixel unit to a different subset of pixels of the four subsets of pixels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-11, 15-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recites the newly added claim limitation of “sequentially activating and deactivating the plurality of subsets of pixels such that in each of the four-pixel units, three pixels are activated and one pixel is deactivated” does not have support in the specification and therefore constitutes new matter.
Dependent claims 5-6, 8-10, 15-16 and 18-21 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, on the same basis.
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, 5, 8, 11, 15, 18 and 21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each pixel of each of the four-pixel units", “the plurality of subsets of pixels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the four-pixel unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 18 recites the limitation "the subset of pixels". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "each four-pixel unit", “each pixel in each four-pixel unit”, “the plurality of subsets of pixels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the four subsets of pixels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the four subsets of pixels", “each four-pixel unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 15-16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20170330518).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses a method for refreshing pixels of a display operating in an always-on mode ([0035]), the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of pixels of the display that are activated while the display is operating in the always-on mode ([0035]; [0037]-[0039]);
dividing the plurality of pixels into at least two subsets of pixels including a first subset of pixels (Fig. 7, #RPU1) and a second subset of pixels (#RPU3), the first subset of pixels and the second subset of pixels being mutually exclusive ([0081]), wherein the dividing of the plurality of pixel into the at least two subsets of pixels comprises;
dividing the plurality of pixels displaying content into four-pixel units ([0081]),
wherein each four-pixel unit is a two-by-two unit of pixels displaying content ([0013]; [0081]); and
assigning each pixel of each of the four-pixel units to one of the at least two subsets of pixels ([0081]-[0086]); and
sequentially activating and deactivating the plurality of subsets of pixels such that in each of the four-pixel units, three pixels are activated an one pixel is deactivated ([0090]-[0093]).
As per claims 5 and 15, Lee discloses the method (computing device) of claim 1 (claim 11), wherein the at least two subsets of pixels comprises four subsets of pixels and wherein assigning each pixel of each of the four-pixel units to one of the at least two subsets of pixels comprises assigning each pixel in the four-pixel unit to a different subset of pixels of the at least two subsets of pixels ([0097]-[0098]; [0103]-[0106]).
As per claims 6 and 16, Lee discloses the method (computing device) of claim 5 (claim 15) wherein the sequentially activating and deactivating the plurality of subsets of pixels comprises:
turning on a second of the four subsets of pixels ([0103]-[0104]);
turning off a third of the four subsets of pixels ([0103]-[0104]);
waiting a period of time ([0102]);
turning on the third of the four subsets of pixels ([0105]-[0106]); and
turning off a fourth of the four subsets of pixels ([0105]-[0106]).
As per claims 8 and 18, Lee discloses the method (computing device) of claim 1 (claim 11), further comprising increasing a brightness of a subset of pixels of the at least two subset of pixels currently being displayed by increasing a current provided to at least one pixel of the four pixel unit in the subset of pixels ([0053]; [0071]).
As per claim 11, Lee discloses a computing device ([0108]), the computing device comprising:
a display (Fig, 1, #110; [0030]);
one or more processors ([0108]); and
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations ([0110]), the operations comprising:
identifying a plurality of pixels of the display that are activated while the display is operating in an always-on mode ([0035]; [0037]-[0039]);
dividing the plurality of pixels into at least two subsets of pixels ([0081]), wherein the dividing of the plurality of pixels in at least two subsets of pixel of pixels comprises:
dividing the plurality of pixels displaying content into four-pixel units ([0081]),
wherein each four-pixel unit is a two-by-two unit of pixels displaying content ([0013]; [0081]); and
assigning each pixel of each four-pixel unit to one of the at least two subsets of pixels ([0081]-[0086]); and
sequentially activating and deactivating the plurality of subsets of pixels such that in each of the four-pixel units, three pixels are activated an one pixel is deactivated ([0090]-[0093]).
As per claim 21, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first of the four subsets of pixels comprises a bottom-right pixel of each four-pixel unit, a second of the four subsets of pixels comprises a bottom-left pixel of each four-pixel unit, a third of the four subsets comprises a top- left pixel of each four-pixel unit, and a fourth of the four subsets comprises a top-right pixel of each four-pixel unit ([0081]; where pixel units in a 2x2 structure inherently include a first of the four subsets of pixels comprises a bottom-right pixel of each four-pixel unit, a second of the four subsets of pixels comprises a bottom-left pixel of each four-pixel unit, a third of the four subsets comprises a top- left pixel of each four-pixel unit, and a fourth of the four subsets comprises a top-right pixel of each four-pixel unit).
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 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Perdices-Gonzalez (US 20170309215).
As per claims 9 and 19, Lee discloses the method (computing device) of claim 1 (claim 11), wherein the sequentially activating and deactivating of the plurality of subsets of pixels comprises:
identifying which pixels of the display must be turned off based on the subset of pixels of the at least two subsets of pixels ([0090]-[0093]).
However, Lee does not teach providing the identified pixels to an alpha display layer; and using the alpha display layer to turn off the identified pixels.
Perdices-Gonzalez teaches providing the identified pixels to an alpha display layer (#140); and using the alpha display layer to turn off the identified pixels ([0094]-[0095]; [0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the alpha display layer disclosed by Perdices-Gonzalez to the method and computing device of Lee so as to provide pixels that may be set to various states, such as for example, black, white, partially transparent, transparent, reflective, or opaque (Lee: [0094]).
As per claims 10 and 20, Lee discloses the method (computing device) of claim 1 (claim 11).
However, Lee does not teach performing an image blurring step before turning off a subset of pixels of the at least two subsets of pixels.
Perdices-Gonzalez teaches performing an image blurring step before turning off a subset of pixels of the at least two subsets of pixels ([0279]; [0282]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the image blurring disclosed by Perdices-Gonzalez to the method and computing device of Lee so as to provide different types of blurring effects can including vignetting, speed, motion, depth, a highlight layer, a privacy filter, a transition, a frame, censorship, block, or texturing (Perdices-Gonzalez: [0279]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection as presented above.
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 Nelson Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-8044. The examiner can normally be reached 1pm-9pm.
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.
/Nelson Lam/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
/KE XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights