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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 recites “computer-readable storage medium.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § I01 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals -Patentability, 1 077 0ff. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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 1-3, 5-7, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (US 20190339924).
Regarding claim 1: Hu teaches an image processing apparatus (fig. 3 and para [0096] teach an image processing apparatus), comprising: at least one input module, configured for acquiring an image signal to be displayed (fig. 3, and para [0124-0125]: video input units 1, 2, 3, belong to an video input group configured to acquiring an image signal to be displayed); an image processing module, configured for determining a quantity of output modules, and determining respective sub-image signals to be displayed corresponding to the image signal to be displayed based on the quantity of the output modules (fig. 3 and para [0117]: The processing for an output unit include the scaling of the resolution of a video frame/divided blocks of a video frame, the converting of video format, the stacking of respective video frames/divided blocks of a video frame of a same output unit, etc. That is, the number of output modules (blocks of a video frame) is determined in order to divide video frame by the number of blocks of a video frame); a synchronization module, configured for determining synchronization signals corresponding to the respective sub-image signals to be displayed (fig. 3 and para [0124-0129]: synchronous output calibration unit; a video synchronous output group A and a video synchronous output group Bare respectively broadcasted and configured through a synchronous output calibration unit, such that output periods of output units in the video synchronous output group A are identical and output periods of output units in the video synchronous output group B are identical); and a plurality of output modules (fig. 3 and para [0124-0129] video output units A-1, A-2, A-3 ... , B-1, B-2, B-3 ... ), configured for respectively sending each of the sub-image signals to be displayed to a display terminal based on the respective synchronization signals (fig. 3 and para [0124-0129] the output data of each input unit can be outputted on each of output units of one or more different synchronous output groups. For an example, the data input by the video input unit 1 can be outputted/displayed synchronously in the video output units A-1, A-2, A-3 ... in the video synchronous output group A, and at the same time can be outputted/displayed synchronously in the video output unit B-1, B-2, B-3 ... in the video synchronous output group B).
Regarding claims 2, 11, 17: Hu teaches wherein the image processing module is further configured for: determining a quantity of the at least one input module; and dividing the image signals to be displayed acquired by the at least one input module based on the quantity of the output modules to obtain sub-image signals to be displayed having a same quantity as the quantity of the output modules if it is determined that the quantity of the output modules does not equal to the quantity of the at least one input module (fig. 3 and para [0124-0129 and 0141-0142] a video frame is divided by the number of output units. If a complete video frame image needs to be displayed across multiple splicing screens, a portion of the video frame, which is displayed on each splicing screen, is referred to as a video frame divided block. When the to-be processed data is a video frame, the video frame may be a complete video frame or video frame divided blocks of the same video frame).
Regarding claims 3, 12, 18: Hu teaches wherein the image processing module is further configured for: determining a quantity of the at least one input module; and determining the image signal to be displayed acquired by the respective input modules respectively as the sub-image signal to be displayed if it is determined that the quantity of the output modules equals to the quantity of the at least one input module (fig. 3 and para [0124-0129 and 0141-0142] The complete content of the video frame can be synchronously output on multiple video output units. That is, an input video frame can be dedicated for output on one output unit, output of the complete video frame on multiple video output units or a video frame can be divided and output on multiple video output units).
Regarding claims 5-7, 14, 20: Hu teaches wherein the synchronization module comprises a plurality of clock generators based on a homologous clock source, a quantity of the plurality of clock generators being the same as the quantity of the plurality of output modules; and wherein the synchronization module is further configured for: generating by each of the clock generators a corresponding synchronization signal for respective sub-image signals to be displayed (figs. 3, 6 and para [0124-0129, 0167-0169] each output unit comprises a reference clock which is controlled based on a reference clock management unit, such that the reference clocks of the output units in the synchronous output group are identical in phase and frequency).
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 recites similar claim limitations as in claim 1, except claim 10 is a method claim. Thus, all the arguments made above for claim 1 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 15: Hu teaches a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program thereon, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor for to performing the method according to claim 10 (see claim 1 rejection for performing the method, and see fig. 9 and paragraph [0080, 0242-0244] for a processor 42 and memory 43).
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recites similar claim limitations as in claim 1. Thus, all the arguments made above for claim 1 are applicable for claim 16. Claim 16 further recites a processor; and a memory configured for storing processor-executable instructions; wherein the processor is configured to read the processor-executable instructions from the memory which is also taught by Hu in fig. 9 and paragraph [0080, 0242-0244] for a processor 42 and memory 43.
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.
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 4, 8, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20190339924) in the view of Duan (US 20180013978).
Regarding claims 4, 13, 19: Hu teaches wherein the plurality of output modules are further configured for: sending, based on the synchronization signal, the respective sub-image signals to be displayed to a plurality of video output units of the display terminal, respectively, so that the display terminal is driven simultaneously by the plurality of time sequence controllers to display the respective sub-image signals (figs. 3, 6 and para [0124-0129, 0167-0169] the synchronously output calibration unit, synchronously processing unit are configured to send the synchronization signal to a plurality of video output groups to control reference clocks of output units in a synchronous output group such that the reference clocks of the output units in the synchronous output group are identical in phase and frequency).
Hu does not explicitly disclose a plurality of time sequence controllers of the display terminal.
However, Duan teaches a plurality of time sequence controllers of the display terminal (Figs. 5, 7 and paragraph [0046, 0063] teach a plurality of time sequence controllers T-CONs). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu’s invention by including above teachings of Duan, because utilizing a plurality of timing controllers for each sub-frame area allows the sub-image to be processed in a timely manner and displayed on the display terminal appropriately to achieve the required image quality, as taught by Duan. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claims 8-9: Combination of Hu and Duan teaches a display apparatus, comprising a display terminal and the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (Hu in fig. 3 and para [0096]); wherein the display terminal comprises a plurality of time sequence controllers and a display screen, and a quantity of the time sequence controllers is the same as the quantity of output modules in the image processing apparatus; and wherein each of the time sequence controllers of the display terminal is configured for acquiring a sub-image signal to be displayed, and for driving the display screen to display the sub-image signal to be displayed; and wherein each of the time sequence controllers is configured for driving display sub-areas at different positions of the display screen to display the respective sub-image signals to be displayed, respectively (Hu in figs. 3, 5 and par. [0169]: each output unit comprise a reference clock which is controlled by a reference clock management unit. See also "synchronous reception", "synchronous processing", and "synchronous output" in fig. 5, meaning some controller is being utilized to sync clocks and image signal. Further, Duan in Figs. 5, 7 and paragraph [0046, 0063] teach a plurality of time sequence controllers T-CONs for each of the output module of the display terminal and wherein each of the time sequence controllers T-cons is configured for driving display sub-areas at different positions of the display screen to display the respective sub-image signals to be displayed, respectively). See claim 4 rejection for combination reasoning of Hu and Duan, same rationale applies here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 5712707230. 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.
/AMIT CHATLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624