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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 12, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (USPGPUB 2023/0114072—hereinafter “Kang”) in view of Kim et al. (USPGPUB 2025/0021189—hereinafter “Kim”).
As to Claim 1, Kang teaches an electronic device (Fig. 3 at 1000) comprising:
a display layer configured to display an image (Fig. 3 at 100);
a sensor layer (Fig. 3 at 200) on the display layer (Fig. 3 at 100) and configured to receive a downlink signal from an input device (Pg. 3, ¶’s 51 and 61 and Pg. 4, ¶ 74);
a display driver configured to drive the display layer (Fig. 3 at 100C and Pg. 4, ¶ 67); and
a sensor driver (Fig. 3 at 200) configured to control the sensor layer and to operate in a first mode (Figs. 9A-9B at NM) and a second mode (Figs. 9A-9B at LM) different from the first mode (Pgs. 9-10, ¶’s 152-157),
wherein in the first mode (Figs. 9A-9B at NM), the display driver is configured to drive the display layer in a first frame having a first operating frequency (Figs. 9A-9B at NDF1-NDF4 and Pg. 9, ¶’s 152-156),
wherein in the second mode, the display driver is configured to drive the display layer in a second frame (Figs. 9A-9B at LDF1-LDF2) having a second operating frequency lower than the first operating frequency (Pg. 9, ¶’s 152-156),
wherein the second frame comprises a first write period (Figs. 9A-9B at SF1) and a first blank period (Figs. 9A-9B at SF2 and Pg. 9, ¶’s 152-156).
Kang, however fails to teach that in the second mode, the sensor driver is configured to receive the downlink signal during a period overlapping with the first blank period. Examiner cites Kim to teach a touch display device configured to receive a downlink signal during a period overlapping with a blank period (Pg. 8, ¶ 186). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to receive a downlink signal during a period overlapping with a blank period, as taught by Kim, in the electronic device taught by Kang, in order to detect contact with the display without any degradation in image quality (Kim, Pg. 8, ¶’s 183-186).
As to Claim 4, Kang teaches that the sensor layer is configured to sense coordinates of an input by the input device through the downlink signal (Pg. 3, ¶ 51).
As to Claim 5, Kang teaches that the input device is an active pen (Fig. 3 at 2000 and Pg. 3, ¶ 50).
As to Claim 6, Kang teaches that the display driver is configured to provide a data voltage to the display layer during the first write period (Figs. 9A and 9B, note Vdata during SF1 of LDF1 and Pg. 9, ¶ 155).
As to Claim 7, Kang teaches that the display driver is configured to generate a vertical synchronization signal, and wherein in the second mode, the sensor driver is configured to operate in synchronization with the display driver based on the vertical synchronization signal (Figs. 9A and 9B at Vsync and Pg. 9, ¶’s 155-156).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Kim in view of Weng (USPGPUB 2023/0376147—hereinafter “Weng”).
As to Claim 2, Kang, as modified by Kim, fails to teach that in response to the sensor layer sensing a noise signal, the sensor driver is configured to operate in the second mode. Examiner cites Weng to teach an electronic device with touch detection that operates in a second mode in response to a sensor layer sensing a noise signal (Fig. 1 at S100-S104 and Pgs. 2-3, ¶ 29-30). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to operate in a second mode based on sensing a noise signal, as taught by Weng, in the electronic device taught by Kang, as modified by Kim, in order to reduce the misjudgment of a touch position due to noise (Weng, Pg. 2, ¶ 29).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Kim in view of Park et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0383759—hereinafter “Park”).
As to Claim 8, Kang, as modified by Kim, fails to teach that in the second mode, the display driver further is configured to drive the display layer in a third frame having a third operating frequency lower than the second operating frequency. Examiner cites Park to teach a display apparatus that is configured to drive the display layer in a third frame having a third operating frequency lower than the second operating frequency (Figs. 5-6 and Pgs. 6-7, ¶’s 117-124 and Pg. 12, Claim 1). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a third frequency lower than a second frequency, as taught by Park, in the electronic device taught by Kang, as modified by Kim, in order to reduce power consumption and enhance a display quality of a display panel (Park, Pg. 1, ¶’s 7-8).
As to Claim 9, Kang, as modified by Kim and Park, teach that in the second mode, the display driver is configured to drive the display layer in the third frame in response to the image being a still image (Park, Fig. 8A at S20 NO and Figs. 5-6 and Pgs. 6-7, ¶’s 117-124 and Pg. 12, Claim 1), and the display driver is configured to drive the display layer in the second frame in response to the image being a video (Park, Fig. 8A at S20 NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to 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 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As to Claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination: “A method of driving an electronic device, the method comprising: providing the electronic device comprising a display layer configured to display an image, a sensor layer configured to receive a downlink signal from an input device, a display driver configured to drive the display layer, and a sensor driver configured to drive the sensor layer; determining, by the sensor driver, whether a signal received from the sensor layer is a noise signal that has a same frequency as the downlink signal and has a magnitude exceeding a set magnitude; operating, by the sensor driver, in a first mode in response to the signal not being the noise signal; and operating, by the sensor driver, in a second mode in response to the signal being the noise signal, wherein the operating, by the sensor driver, in the first mode comprises: driving, by the display driver, the display layer in a first frame having a first operating frequency, and wherein the operating, by the sensor driver, in the second mode comprises: driving, by the display driver, the display layer in a second frame, which has a second operating frequency lower than the first operating frequency and which comprises a first write period and a first blank period; and receiving, by the sensor driver, the downlink signal during a period overlapping with the first blank period. ”
Claims 12-20 depend upon Claim 11 and thus are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY AMADIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7762. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs; 9AM - 5PM 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/RODNEY AMADIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights