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
Acknowledgment is a made of information disclosure statement filed 14 May 2025 and 21 October 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5, 7, - 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenichi, Nagai (Publication number: US 2011/0249034 A1), hereafter Nagai.
Regarding claim 1,
Nagai discloses a display device (Nagai Figure 1 illustrating image display apparatus) comprising:
a display panel which displays a moving image based on an image signal (Nagai liquid crystal panel 62 in Figure 1; Figure 4A illustrates white ball image moving in a dark background);
a backlight which illuminates the display panel (Nagai backlight 61 of Figure 1); and
a backlight controller which divides the backlight into a plurality of areas, and
controls a light-emission luminance of the backlight for each of the plurality of areas based on the image signal (Nagai luminance control module 41 of Figure 1; “in addition, the luminance control module 41 can generate an area luminance control signal (second luminance control signal) to control luminances of the light sources separately for each light source block 6101 and 6112, and control luminances of the light sources separately for each light source block 6101 to 6112 based on the area luminance control signal; see Figure 3 [0031]),
wherein the backlight controller causes the light-emission luminance of the backlight in a first adjacent illumination area which is adjacent, in a direction in which an image included in the image signal moves, to the image to be changed from a luminance indicated by the image signal (Nagai Figure 4A; “for example, in correspondence with a white ball illustrated in State 1, a light source corresponding to divided display area 6201 is controlled to have a first luminance (high luminance) as illustrated in State 1 of Figure 4B, light sources corresponding to divided display areas 6202, 6207, and 6208 are controlled to have a second luminance lower than the first luminance” [0039]; “Next, in correspondence with the white ball illustrated in State 2 of Figure 4A, the light source corresponding to divided display area 6202 is controlled to have the first luminance (high luminance) as illustrated in State 2 of Figure 4B, the light sources corresponding to divided display areas 6201,6203, 6207, 6208, and 6209 are controlled to have the second luminance lower than the first luminance” [0040]; Comparing Figure 4A (showing he original (or input) image with Figure 4B (showing he area luminance control applied to the individual backlight sectors), it can be seen that adjacent “first adjacent illumination areas” – specifically 6202, 6207 and 6208 in State 1 of Figures 4A/B and 6201, 6203, 6207, 6208 and 6209 in State 2 of Figures4A/B – each of which are indeed adjacent in a direction in which the image is moving- have an illumination level which is changed from the luminance indicated by the image signal in Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 2:
Nagai discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising a first motion vector detector which detects a motion vector of the image included in the image signal, wherein the backlight controller assumes the area which is adjacent, in a direction indicated by the motion vector which has been detected, to a corresponding illumination area corresponding to the image, as the first adjacent illumination area (Nagai [0049] “the luminance control module 41 determines that the image is movie content based on a detection result obtained from the image analysis module 3; see also Figure 4A – C illustrating the backlight controller “assumes the area which is adjected, in a direction indicated by the motion vector which has been detected, to a corresponding illumination area corresponding to the image).
Regarding claim 3:
Nagai discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the backlight controller detects the direction in which the image moves by using a difference between the light-emission luminance corresponding to a certain frame and the light-emission luminance corresponding to a frame that comes next to the certain frame in the moving image (Nagai Figure 4A – 4C; it is known a difference vector by definition takes a difference between corresponding components of vectors).
Regarding claim 5:
Nagai discloses the display device according to claim 2, wherein the backlight controller performs lighting such that the light-emission luminance of the first adjacent illumination area is lower than the light-emission luminance of the corresponding illumination area (Nagai Figure 4B state 1 – 6202, 6207, and 6208 have a lower illumination that 6201; Figure 4B state 2 – 6201, 6203, 6207, 6208 and 6210 have a lower illumination than 6202; Figure 4B state 3 – 6202, 6204, 6208, and 6210 have a lower illumination than 6203, and 6209).
Regarding claim 7:
Nagai discloses the display device according to claim 2, wherein the backlight controller also changes, when magnitude of the motion vector exceeds a threshold value, the light-emission luminance of a second adjacent illumination area that is adjacent to the corresponding illumination area in a direction different from a direction of the motion vector, in addition to the first adjacent illumination area (Nagai Figure 4C; see that backlight areas in both the horizontal direction {e.g. 6202 in State 1 of Figure 4C; 6201 and 6203 in State 2 of Figure 4C; 6202 and 6204 in State 3 of Figure 4C} and the vertical direction {e.g. 6207 and 6208 in State 1 of Figure 4C; 6207, 6208 and 6209 in Sate 2 of Figure 4C; 6208 and 6210 in State 3 of Figure 4C} are changed).
Regarding claim 8:
Nagai discloses the display device according to claim 2, wherein the backlight controller also changes, according to magnitude of the motion vector, the light-emission luminance of a third adjacent illumination area that is adjacent to the first adjacent illumination area in a direction of the motion vector (Nagai 6203 and 6209 of State 1 of Figure 4C have their illumination changed, and are adjacent to the “first” area 6202, 6207, and 6208; 6204 and 6210 of State 2 of Figure 4C have their illumination changed, and are adjacent to the “first” area 6201, 6203, 6207, 6208, and 6209; 6201, 6207, 6205 and 6211 of State 3 of Figure 4C have their illumination changed, and are adjacent to the “first” area 6202, 6208, 6204 and 6210).
Regarding claim 9:
Nagai discloses the display device according to claim 8, wherein the backlight controller increases, as the magnitude of the motion vector is increased, the third adjacent illumination area in which the light-emission luminance is changed, in the motion vector direction (Nagai Figure 4C adjacent areas include third adjacent area such as 6206 in state 3 i.e., an area that is adjacent in greater degree).
Regarding claim 10:
Nagai discloses the display device according to claim 2, wherein the backlight controller determines the light-emission luminance of the first adjacent area in accordance with luminance difference between the image from which the motion vector based on the image signal is detected and a background (Nagai Figure 4A – C illustrating the backlight controller “assumes the area which is adjected, in a direction indicated by the motion vector which has been detected, to a corresponding illumination area corresponding to the image. A motion vector between ball and image at subsequent position; see Figure 3 in which the input image signal includes a signal comprising background signal i.e., portions of image other than the moving ball illustrated in Figure 4A – 4C).
Regarding claim 11:
Nagai discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the backlight controller determines the light-emission luminance of the first adjacent illumination area according to a signal level of a screen as a whole based on the image signal (Nagai Figure 4A – C illustrating the backlight controller “assumes the area which is adjected, in a direction indicated by the motion vector which has been detected, to a corresponding illumination area corresponding to the image; see Figure 3 illustrating the image input signal includes a signal level corresponding to the signal as whole).
Regarding claim 12:
Nagai discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the backlight controller determines the light-emission luminance of the first adjacent illumination area according to a luminance level of a screen as a whole based on the image signal (Nagai Figure 4A – C illustrating the backlight controller “assumes the area which is adjected, in a direction indicated by the motion vector which has been detected, to a corresponding illumination area corresponding to the image; see Figure 3 illustrating the image input signal includes luminance information corresponding to the signal as whole).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai.
Regarding claim 4:
Nagai does not disclose the display device according to claim 3, further comprising a second motion vector detector which detects a difference between the light-emission luminances of the backlight as a motion vector.
However, as Nagai teaches determining a motion vector detector 121 within the backlight detector 12A, it would have been obvious to modify Nagai to include a second motion vector detection, as claimed, which detects a difference between the light-emission luminances of the backlight as a motion vector, as claimed, because it has been found that the mere duplication parts has not been found patentable (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai, in view of Yamamura et al; (Publication number: US 2011/0304657 A1), hereafter Yamamura.
Regarding claim 6:
Nagai does not disclose the display device according to claim 2, wherein the backlight controller causes the light-emission luminance of the first adjacent illumination area to be varied according to magnitude of the motion vector.
However, Yamamura discloses a backlight device and display device. More particularly, Yamamura discloses wherein the backlight controller causes the light-emission luminance of the first adjacent illumination area to be varied according to magnitude of the motion vector (Yamamura “depending on the detection result, weight control section 135 performs weighting area setting. Weighting area setting is performed for each light emitting area”; Yamamura [0200]).
It would have been obvious to modify Nagai wherein the backlight controller causes the light-emission luminance of the first adjacent illumination area to be varied according to magnitude of the motion vector, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reduce impure black upon movie display and also reduce the visibility of flicker (Yamamura [0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 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 5712727603. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 20 February 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621