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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0246375 A1 (Zhang) in view of US 2012/0327136 A1 (Uehara) and US 2013/0147778 A1 (Ninan) and design choice.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches an electronic device, comprising: a display panel (Fig. 2A at 101), wherein a frame displayed on the display panel is formed by a plurality of sub-frames (Abstract); and a backlight source, disposed below the display panel and comprising a plurality of light-emitting units ([79]-[80], [103]); wherein the backlight source comprises a local dimming function ([58], [60], [64], [69], [105]; Figs. 2C, 2D), when a gray- level value of a position of each of the plurality of sub-frames corresponding to a first frame area is greater than a zero gray-level value and less than or equal to a fraction of the maximum gray-level value in the first frame area of the frame displayed on the display panel and a gray- level value of a position of at least one of the sub-frames corresponding to a second frame area is greater than the fraction of the maximum gray-level value in the second frame area outside the first frame area, the local dimming function uses a first mode to control the light-emitting units corresponding to a first backlight area of the first frame area, and uses a second mode to control the light-emitting units corresponding to a second backlight area of the second frame area ([58], [60], [64], [69], [105]; Figs. 2C, 2D);
Zhang does not expressly teach that the fraction of the maximum gray-level value is 1/5. Zhang teaches that different threshold values may be used ([58]-[60]). Therefore, selecting a threshold value of 1/5 of the maximum gray-level value would have been obvious as a matter of design choice.
Zhang does not expressly teach that the plurality of sub-frames corresponds to different colors. Uehara teaches that a backlight comprises different colors, which are associated with a plurality of sub-frames (Figs. 1-2). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Zhang by this teaching of Uehara is present as both teach displays with backlights. The motivation is to implement color. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Zhang and Uehara teach displays with back lights. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Zhang and Uehara would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the plurality of sub-frames corresponding to different colors.
Zhang does not expressly teach when the frame displayed on the display panel has a maximum brightness, the plurality of sub-frames have a maximum gray-level value at the same time. Ninan teaches when the frame displayed on the display panel has a maximum brightness, the plurality of sub-frames have a maximum gray-level value at the same time ([55]: maximum luminance level to be rendered on the entire display panel). The suggestion to modify the combination of Zhang and Uehara by the teaching of Ninan is present as all teach displays with backlights and local dimming. The motivation is aesthetic design choice to implement a global image of maximum brightness. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang, Uehara, and Ninan teach displays with backlights and local dimming. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Zhang, Uehara, and Ninan would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, when the frame displayed on the display panel has a maximum brightness, the plurality of sub-frames have a maximum gray-level value at the same time.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further teaches wherein in the first mode, the light-emitting units corresponding to the first backlight area of the first frame area emit light at a predetermined brightness value [60], [64], [69], [105]; Figs. 2C, 2D);
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further teaches wherein in the first mode, the light-emitting units in the first backlight area emit light according to a first-backlight brightness-gray-level value-ratio relationship [60], [64], [69], [105]; Figs. 2C, 2D), in the second mode, the light-emitting units in the second backlight area emit light according to a second-backlight brightness-gray-level value-ratio relationship [60], [64], [69], [105]; Figs. 2C, 2D), and the first-backlight brightness-gray-level value- ratio relationship is different from the second-backlight brightness-gray-level value- ratio relationship [60], [64], [69], [105]; Figs. 2C, 2D);
Regarding claim 6, Zhang further teaches wherein a maximum brightness emitted by the light-emitting units in the first backlight area according to the first- backlight brightness-gray-level value-ratio relationship is less than a minimum brightness emitted by the light-emitting units in the second backlight area according to the second-backlight brightness-gray-level value-ratio relationship (Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang further teaches wherein in second mode, a light- brightness value of the light-emitting units is increased with the increase of a gray-level value (Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches wherein when a gray-level value of a position of a sub-frame is equal to a zero gray-level value (Fig. 2C at zero brightness value and zero gain coefficient). Zhang does not expressly teach wherein when a gray-level value of a position of each of the plurality of sub-frames in a third frame area outside the first frame area and the second frame area is equal to a zero gray-level value, the local dimming function uses a third mode to control the light-emitting units corresponding to a third backlight area of the third frame area. However, Zhang teaches that different thresholds may be set for different brightness intervals for different modes ([60]). Setting a third frame area outside the first frame area and the second frame area equal to a zero gray-level value is a matter of aesthetic design choice. Thus, the combination of the teachings of Zhang and aesthetic design choice renders obvious wherein when a gray-level value of a position of each of the plurality of sub-frames in a third frame area outside the first frame area and the second frame area is equal to a zero gray-level value, the local dimming function uses a third mode to control the light-emitting units corresponding to a third backlight area of the third frame area.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang further teaches the light-emitting units do not emit light (Fig. 2C at zero brightness value and zero gain coefficient). For the reasons explained regarding claim 8, Zhang renders obvious wherein in the third mode, the light-emitting units in the third backlight area do not emit light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are subject to objection as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-5, subject to objection as being dependent upon a rejected claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art cited to reject the aforementioned base and intervening claims does not subsequently teach or render obvious the dependent claims indicated as otherwise allowable in the full context of the claims. Nor does any observed additional prior art in combination with the cited prior art render obvious the dependent claims indicated as being allowable in the full context of the claims.
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 GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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 571-270-7230. 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.
/Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights