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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma, US Pub. No. 2020/0285544 in view of Barton et al. (hereinafter “Barton”), US Pub. No. 2025/0335014.
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches a method of driving a display device (fig. 3) comprising a display panel (fig. 4, display 636), a processor (fig. 4, processor 630), and a first memory (fig. 4, memory 632), the method comprising: initializing the first memory upon power-on (fig. 3, steps 306, 318, 320); and organizing data in the first memory (fig. 3, steps 302, 304, 326; in particular Ma teaches organizing data in memory by backing up desired data to non-volatile memory prior to a power-off event and restoring the data after power-on).
Ma fails to explicitly teach providing a power-off notification command to the first memory.
However, in the same field of endeavor of power management and data preservation techniques, Barton teaches detecting a power loss event and, in response, storing data in memory (see fig. 6, steps 601, 603), including determining the occurrence of a power loss based on a signal and threshold condition (steps 605, 607), indicating providing a signal indicative of a power-off condition that triggers memory operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ma to organize data in memory in response to a power-off notification signal as taught by Barton. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the motivation for doing so would have been to ensure preservation and data management of data with loss of power.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ma and Barton teach periodically storing data generated during operation of the display panel in the first memory (Ma, fig. 3, step 302; Barton, fig. 6, step 603; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to periodically store data generated during operation in order to ensure updated data is available for recovery) by: storing the data in the first memory (Ma, fig. 3, step 302; fig. 4, flash memory 632); the organizing the data in the first memory by providing a power-off notification (PON) command to the first memory (Ma, fig. 3, step 304; Barton, fig. 6, steps 601, 603); and periodically repeating the storing of the data and the organizing of the data (Ma, fig. 3; Barton, fig. 6; it would have been obvious to periodically repeat storing and organizing operations as a routine data management technique to minimize data loss during power loss).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ma and Barton teaches further comprising periodically storing in the first memory, accumulated data indicating driving time of pixels of the display panel (Ma, fig. 3, step 302; fig. 4, display 624; Barton, fig. 6, step 603).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ma and Barton teaches further comprising: generating sensing data by sensing characteristics of pixels comprised in the display panel based on a signal for power-off being provided to the display device (Barton, fig. 6, step 601); storing the sensing data in the first memory (Barton, fig. 6, step 603); and providing the PON command to the first memory to organize the data in the first memory (Ma, fig. 3, Barton, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ma and Barton teaches further comprising storing, in a second memory of the display device, performance result information indicating whether the first memory has organized the data during a power-off procedure of the display device (Ma, fig. 3, backup before power-off, restore after reboot; fig. 4, memories 606, 608, 612; Barton, fig. 6, steps 603).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ma and Barton teaches reading the performance result information stored in the second memory (Ma, fig. 3, system checks memory/state during initialization; Barton, figs. 5, 6, system determines operating mode based on stored data).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ma and Burton teaches anticipating, with the processor, delay in initialization of the first memory based on the performance result information indicating that the first memory has organized the data not being read (Ma, fig. 3, memory initialization, checks, restoring operations before boot; Barton, figs. 5, 6, determining operating mode, restoring data if needed).
Regarding claim 8, it has similar limitations to those of claim 4 and are rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 9, it has similar limitations to those of claim 4 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 10, it has similar limitations to those of claim 6 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 11, it has similar limitations to those of claim 7 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 12, it has similar limitations to those of claim 7 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 13, Ma teaches wherein the first memory comprises an embedded MultiMedia Card (eMMC), and wherein the second memory comprises an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM) (fig. 4, flash memory 632, ROM 606, storage 612).
Regarding claim 14, Ma teaches further comprising performing, by the first memory, at least one of a data integrity check operation, a garbage collection operation, or a wear-leveling operation to initialize the first memory upon the power-on (fig. 3, system power on, initialization sequence; fig. 4, flash memory 632 inherently performs garbage collection, wear-leveling and integrity management).
Regarding claim 15, Ma and Barton teach wherein the first memory performs at least one of the data integrity check operation, the garbage collection operation, or the wear-leveling operation in response to the PON command (Ma, fig. 3, power event triggers memory operations; Barton, fig. 6, power loss signal triggers storage).
Regarding claim 16, it is a display device of claim 1 (and dependents) and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 17, it has similar limitations to those of claim 13 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 18, it has similar limitations to those of claim 3 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 19, it is an electronic device of claim 1 (and dependents) and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 20, Ma and Barton teach wherein the electronic device could be any one of these well-known electronic device categories as taught in claim 19. It would have been obvious to implement the combined teachings of Ma and Barton in any of the recited device types as a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zapatylak et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0303192) teaches power loss protection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3147. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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.
/KENNETH B LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights