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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koo et. al. [8,199,138].
Regarding claim 1, Koo teaches:
A display device comprising: a display including a plurality of LED pixels [fig. 7, note output images to pixels];
a driver configured to drive the display by applying a current to the plurality of LED pixels [fig. 7, overdriving unit 520];
a communication interface; memory storing at least one instruction [fig. 7, item 720];
and one or more processors connected to the display [fig. 7, processor 510],
the communication interface and the memory, wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the display device to: identify at least one of a magnitude of a current or an application time of the current to be applied to the plurality of LED pixels based on luminance information of an input image [fig. 7, note device determining overdriving current magnitude based upon the image data];
The following claim elements are regarded as contingent limitations, i.e. the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Below, the contingent limitations are if the image is 2D or if the image is 3D. In this case, Koo teaches the structure recited in claim 1, and the below limitations are contingent and therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (see MPEP 2111.04 II).
based on the input image being identified as a two-dimensional (2D) image, control the driver to control the current to be applied to the plurality of LED pixels based on the identified at least one of the magnitude of the current or the application time of the current; based on the input image being identified as a three-dimensional (3D) image, control the driver to obtain a left image and a right image included in the input image and alternately display the left image and the right image; generate a 3D synchronization signal corresponding to a display timing of the left image and the right image, and transmit the generated 3D synchronization signal to 3D glasses through the communication interface; and control the driver to increase the identified at least one of the magnitude of the current or the application time of the current while the left image and the right image are displayed.
Regarding claim 9, Koo teaches:
A controlling method of a display device comprising a display that includes a plurality of LED pixels [fig. 7, note output images to pixels], the method comprising:
identifying at least one of a magnitude of a current or an application time of the current to be applied to the plurality of LED pixels based on luminance information of an input image [fig. 7, note device determining overdriving current magnitude based upon the image data];
The following claim elements are regarded as contingent limitations, i.e. the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Below, the contingent limitations are if the image is 2D or if the image is 3D. In this case, Koo teaches the method steps required by claim 9, and the below limitations are contingent and therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (see MPEP 2111.04 II).
based on the input image being identified as a two-dimensional (2D) image, controlling the current to be applied to the plurality of LED pixels based on the identified at least one of the magnitude of the current or the application time of the current; based on the input image being identified as a three-dimensional (3D) image, obtaining a left image and a right image included in the input image and alternately displaying the left image and the right image; generating a 3D synchronization signal corresponding to a display timing of the left image and the right image, and transmitting the generated 3D synchronization signal to 3D glasses; and increasing the identified at least one of the magnitude of the current or the application time of the current while the left image and the right image are displayed.
Regarding claim 17, Koo teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a computer instruction that, when executed by a processor of a display device comprising a display that includes a plurality of LED pixels, causes the display device to: identify at least one of a magnitude of a current or an application time of the current to be applied to the plurality of LED pixels based on luminance information of an input image [fig. 7, note device determining overdriving current magnitude based upon the image data];
The following claim elements are regarded as contingent limitations, i.e. the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Below, the contingent limitations are if the image is 2D or if the image is 3D. In this case, Koo teaches the method steps required by claim 17, and the below limitations are contingent and therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (see MPEP 2111.04 II).
based on the input image being identified as a 2D image, control the current to be applied to the plurality of LED pixels based on the identified at least one of the magnitude of the current or the application time of the current; based on the input image being identified as a 3D image, obtain a left image and a right image included in the input image and alternately display the left image and the right image; generate a 3D synchronization signal corresponding to a display timing of the left image and the right image, and transmit the generated 3D synchronization signal to 3D glasses; and increase the identified at least one of the magnitude of the current or the application time of the current while the left image and the right image are displayed.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16 and 18-20 recite further detail to contingent claim elements, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Below, the contingent limitations are if the image is 2D or if the image is 3D. In this case, Koo teaches the claims 1, 9 and 18 as noted above, and the below limitations are contingent and therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (see MPEP 2111.04 II).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Koo teaches:
wherein the display includes a plurality of display modules, wherein the driver includes a plurality of driving modules connected to the plurality of display modules [fig. 7, note LUT units 702 and 704],
and wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the display device to adjust the preset ratio based on peak luminance information corresponding to each of the plurality of display modules [fig. 7, note image output ratio changed based upon data from units 702 and 704].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fored Herranz et. al. [2021/0097958].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SASINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5883. The examiner can normally be reached 7am - 4pm, Mon.-Fri. EST.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/ANDREW SASINOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625