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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 16, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meulen (U.S. 9,024,966 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Meulen discloses: a display apparatus (Meulen, figs. 1-4, display apparatus 100, disclosed in col 2 {lines 58-67} & abstract), comprising:
a display panel comprising a plurality of display modules (Meulen, figs. 1-4, display panel 110 with multiple square dither modules, as illustrated in fig. 4 as side-by-side p {i.e., purple} and non-p modules, disclosed in col 2 {lines 58-67}, & col 3 {line 37}- col 4 {line 67});
one or more processors comprising processing circuitry (Meulen, figs. 1-4, processor 120 & mentioned decoding processor/other processors, disclosed in col 2 {line 58}- col 3 {line 16}, & col 6 {lines 3-22}); and
memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively (Meulen, figs. 1-4, processor 120 & mentioned decoding processor/other processors & memory 130, disclosed in col 2 {line 58}- col 3 {line 16}, col 6 {lines 3-40}, & claim 14), cause the display apparatus to:
display, using the display panel, an image comprising a plurality of image frames, and display, on each display module of the plurality of display modules, a dither mask from among a plurality of dither masks corresponding to an image frame of the plurality of image frames, and wherein each display module of the plurality of display modules is configured to: receive the image frame of the plurality of image frames, identify, based on receipt of the image frame, the dither mask corresponding to the image frame, and display a partial image corresponding to the image frame and the dither mask (Meulen, figs. 1-4, display apparatus 100 including but not limited thereto: display panel 110, processor 120, mentioned decoding processor/other processors & memory 130, disclosed in col 2 {line 58}- col 4 {line 67}, col 6 {lines 3-40}, & claim 14).
In regards to claim 8, Meulen discloses: the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the dither mask comprises at least two color pixels, and wherein the dither mask comprises a dither pattern of a predetermined size (Meulen, figs. 1-4, processor 120 & mentioned decoding processor/other processors & memory 130, disclosed in col 2 {line 58}- col 4 {line 67}, col 6 {lines 3-40}, & claim 14; please note, pixel size and color key value).
In regards to claim 10, Meulen discloses: a control method to by performed by a display apparatus, the control method comprising: displaying, using a display panel of the display apparatus, an image comprising a plurality of image frames, the display panel comprising a plurality of display modules; and displaying, on each display module of the plurality of display modules, a dither mask from among a plurality of dither masks corresponding to an image frame of the plurality of image frames, wherein the displaying of the dither mask comprises: receiving, by each display module of the plurality of display modules, the image frame of the plurality of image frames; identifying, by each display module of the plurality of display modules, the dither mask corresponding to the image frame, based on the receiving of the image frame; and displaying, by each display module of the plurality of display modules, a partial image corresponding to the image frame and the dither mask (Meulen, figs. 1-4, display apparatus 100 including but not limited thereto: display panel 110, processor 120, mentioned decoding processor/other processors & memory 130, disclosed in col 2 {line 58}- col 4 {line 67}, col 6 {lines 3-40}, claim 8, claim 14, & abstract; please note, disclosure regarding computer-readable medium).
In regards to claim 16, Meulen discloses: the control method of claim 10, wherein the dither mask comprises at least two color pixels, and wherein the dither mask comprises a dither pattern of a predetermined size (Meulen, figs. 1-4, processor 120 & mentioned decoding processor/other processors & memory 130, disclosed in col 2 {line 58}- col 4 {line 67}, col 6 {lines 3-40}, & claim 14; please note, pixel size and color key value).
In regards to claim 18, Meulen discloses: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer- executable program for executing a control method that, when executed by at least one processor of a display apparatus, causes the display apparatus to: display, using a display panel of the display apparatus, an image comprising a plurality of image frames, the display panel comprising a plurality of display modules; and display, on each display module of the plurality of display modules, a dither mask from among a plurality of dither masks corresponding to an image frame of the plurality of image frames, and wherein the computer-executable program, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the display apparatus to: receive, by each display module of the plurality of display modules, the image frame of the plurality of image frames; identify, by each display module of the plurality of display modules, the dither mask corresponding to the image frame, based on the receiving of the image frame; and display, by each display module of the plurality of display modules, a partial image corresponding to the image frame and the dither mask (Meulen, figs. 1-4, display apparatus 100 including but not limited thereto: display panel 110, processor 120, mentioned decoding processor/other processors & memory 130, disclosed in col 2 {line 58}- col 4 {line 67}, col 6 {lines 3-40}, claim 8, claim 14, & abstract; please note, disclosure regarding computer-readable medium).
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 9 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meulen in view of Guncer (U.S. 8,970,646 B2).
In regards to claim 9, Meulen discloses: the display apparatus of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose: wherein each display module of the plurality of display modules operates based on a passive matrix method.
However, Guncer discloses: wherein each display module of the plurality of display modules operates based on a passive matrix method (Guncer, figs. 2-4, disclosed in col 1 {lines 1-12} & col 1 {line 53}- col 2 {line 36}).
Guncer and Meulen are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to dither/ light mask pattern display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the display apparatus of Meulen to include functionality and circuitry for providing: wherein each display module of the plurality of display modules operates based on a passive matrix method, as taught by Guncer, in order to achieve finer geometric details with minimal image quality loss (Guncer, abstract).
In regards to claim 17, Meulen discloses: the control method of claim 10, but fails to explicitly disclose: further comprising: operating each display module of the plurality of display modules based on a passive matrix method.
However, Guncer discloses: further comprising: operating each display module of the plurality of display modules based on a passive matrix method (Guncer, figs. 2-4, disclosed in col 1 {lines 1-12} & col 1 {line 53}- col 2 {line 36}).
Guncer and Meulen are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to dither/ light mask pattern display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the control of Meulen to further include functionality and circuitry for operating each display module of the plurality of display modules based on a passive matrix method, as taught by Guncer, in order to achieve finer geometric details with minimal image quality loss (Guncer, abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 11-15, & 19-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duane N. Taylor Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-4703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Saturday [5:30am- 10pm].
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (571) 272-3017. 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.
Duane N. Taylor Jr.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2626
/DUANE N TAYLOR JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights