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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
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.”
Separate figures are not separately labeled. See 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), which recites “Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter.”
Fewer than all “Numbers, letters, and reference characters … measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
Views are not “grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h).
Some letters “cross or mingle with the lines” contrary to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
Applicant is advised to proofread words appearing within the drawings. See “SCROE” in Fig. 3, for example.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [65] SPEC says “FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a game related to a gunfight.” In [66] SPEC says “FIG. 4 illustrates an example in which an opponent or enemy 410 holding a gun is positioned at the upper end of the screen”. This is inconsistent with the appearance of seemingly unarmed joggers in Fig. 4.
In [132] the SPEC recites “FIG. 13 illustrates a method of arranging the video data in the order required by the present disclosure when the ROI (e.g., the traffic line in the racing game) is located at the upper end of the video.” This is inconsistent with an illustrated ROI location at the lower right end of the video.
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 1-14 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 “change the operation order of the at least one gate line”. It is unclear in what sense “an operation order” could possibly have any meaning in a case wherein only one single gate line exists. Thus, the meaning of “operation order of at least one gate line” is unclear.
Independent claim 9 recites “change an operation order of at least one gate line”. It is unclear in what sense “an operation order” could possibly have any meaning in a case wherein only a single gate line exists. Thus, the meaning of “operation order of at least one gate line” is unclear.
Other pending claims are indefinite by dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites “the game system is located inside or outside the display device”. No other location being possible, the scope of claim 5 is identical to the scope of parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, 5-6, 9-10, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slavenburg et al (US 20200243033 A1).
As recited in independent claim 1, Slavenburg et al show a display device (“the display” [0049]) comprising: a gate driving circuit (including shift register elements) configured to select at least one gate line (at least one row, for example) of a display panel (“the display” [0049]); a source driving circuit (column driver, for example) configured to convert (“decode the encoded image data” [0019]) video data corresponding to the selected gate line (row) into a video signal (“display data” [0019]), and output the video signal (“then transmit the display data for display” [0019]) to a source line (see data lines from column driver to pixel columns) of the display panel (“by a display device (e.g., an LCD)” [0019]); and a timing controller (see Video Controller 110, for example) configured to (inherently) determine an operation order (“scan order” [0049]) of the at least one gate line (see horizontal lines in Fig. 5A, for example), wherein the timing controller 110 is configured to change the operation order (inherent to “a first subset of rows of the display (e.g., a middle third) may be updated according to one scan order (e.g., middle-out), a top third of the display may be updated according to another scan order (e.g., middle out, top-down, bottom-up, etc.), and a bottom third of the display may be updated according to another scan order (e.g., middle-out, top-down, bottom-up, etc.). As such, the display may be updated according to various scan orders.” [0049]) of the at least one gate line (at least one row) based on region of interest (ROI) information (“the rows in the region of the display screen that the user is likely most interested in, or that have the greatest amount of change, may be refreshed more quickly than other rows of the display screen. For example, a display architecture may allow for any number of different scan orders (e.g., a data input may be received at any of a number of locations), such that a first image may be updated according to a middle-out scan order, a second image may be updated according to a top-down scan order, a third-image may be updated starting from a row in a top third of the rows and then scanning up and down from there (e.g., where a user is gazing at a top third of the display, or an input is to a top-third of the display, etc.), and so on” [0030]) received from a game system (“the computing device(s) 114 may include a local device—e.g., a game console” [0020]).
Regarding independent claim 9: See teachings above for independent claim 1.
As recited in claim 3, Slavenburg et al show that when the display device corresponds to a TV (“the system 100 may correspond to a single device (e.g., an LCD television)” [0018]) and operates in a specific mode (middle-out ping-pong mode as shown in Fig. 2B, for example), control the at least one gate line to operate starting from a center (see location of row 1 in Fig. 2B, for example) of the display panel (“the system 100 may correspond to a single device (e.g., an LCD television)” [0018]).
Regarding claim 5: See teachings above for claim 1.
As recited in claim 6, Slavenburg et al show both a memory for a reading mode (“store the reconstructed image data in the frame buffer 108” [0019]) and a memory for a writing mode (“scan the reconstructed image data out of the frame buffer 108” [0019]).
As recited in claim 10, Slavenburg et al show that the timing controller 110 is configured to: operate a gate line 1 corresponding to the received ROI information with the highest priority (insofar as middle 202 has priority 1); and operate a gate line 2 located in a remaining area (insofar as 2 remains after 1 is scanned) with a next highest priority 2.
As recited in claim 14, Slavenburg et al show that the timing controller 110 is included in (see Fig. 1) a display device 100.
As recited in claim 15, Slavenburg et al show that the display panel corresponds an LCD (“a display device (e.g., an LCD)” [0019]). It is noted by the Examiner that other limitations (e.g., “an LED, a mini LED, a micro LED, an OLED, … or a PDP”, emphasis added) are recited in the alternative. The claim is anticipated by a prior art teaching of one alternative, even in the absence of other recited alternatives.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavenburg et al (US 20200243033 A1).
Slavenburg et al show a device and controller as described above.
Regarding claim 8: Slavenburg et al are silent regarding the numeric limitations and ranges recited in claim 8.
The law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other numeric or dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that the recited numeric limitations and ranges were predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to arrive at the recited numeric limitations and ranges in the course of routine engineering choice. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to try any known resolution and any number of bits within the range known in the prior art as would have been readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavenburg et al (US 20200243033 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Enomoto et al (US Pat. No. 5408247).
As recited in claims 2 and 11, Slavenburg et al are silent regarding whether when the reception of the ROI information from the game system fails, change the operation order of the at least one gate line based on location information of a mouse pointer.
As recited in claims 2 and 11, Enomoto et al teach changing operation order of at least one gate line (compare “START OF PARTIAL REWRITE SCAN FOR MOUSE” and “RESTART OF REFRESH SCAN” to “REFRESH SCAN INTERRUPTION” in Fig. 9B) based on location information of a mouse pointer (see cursor location in Fig. 9B).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that changing operation order of gate line(s) based on location information of a mouse pointer was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to change operation order of gate line(s) of Slavenburg et al based on location information of a mouse pointer as taught by Enomoto et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to avoid an unnatural appearance of pointing device movement as taught by Enomoto et al (see col. 2, lines 9-21).
Regarding claim 12: See teachings above for claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
09/24/2026
Prosecution Insights