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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment changes scope of previous claims thereby necessitating a new grounds thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
415
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
301
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The office respectfully disagrees.
Please refer to Meulen citations previously provided that include but are not limited thereto: (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). Such respectfully describes that the display processor memory modules {i.e., display modules} for allocating and identifying a display blended image necessitating the at least two for the alternate pixel overlapping dither masks for providing an instant image for a video {i.e., motion pictures/ multiple succeeding images/multiple image frames}, where the alternate pixel overlapping dither masks display image frame necessarily changes the two dither mask combination to provide the intended image for color keying and transparency percentage purposes, of the plurality images that a video respectfully incorporates. Thus, the claim scope metes and bounds are respectfully overlapped. If applicant intended to claim a different scope, the office respectfully suggest to include language that respectfully precludes the above interpretation for compact prosecution purposes.
Therefore, the office respectfully disagrees.
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, display a partial image corresponding to the image frame and the dither mask, wherein the dither mask identified by each display module of the plurality of display modules is the same dither mask for the image frame (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; please note, the display processor memory modules {i.e., display modules} for allocating and identifying a display blended image necessitating the at least two for the alternate pixel overlapping dither masks for providing an instant image for a video {i.e., motion pictures/ multiple succeeding images/multiple image frames}, where the alternate pixel overlapping dither masks display image frame necessarily changes the two dither mask combination to provide the intended image for color keying and transparency percentage purposes, of the plurality images that a video respectfully incorporates).
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; displaying, by each display module of the plurality of display modules, a partial image corresponding to the image frame and the dither mask, and wherein the dither mask identified by each display module of the plurality of display modules is the same dither mask for the image frame (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; please note, the display processor memory modules {i.e., display modules} for allocating and identifying a display blended image necessitating the at least two for the alternate pixel overlapping dither masks for providing an instant image for a video {i.e., motion pictures/ multiple succeeding images/multiple image frames}, where the alternate pixel overlapping dither masks display image frame necessarily changes the two dither mask combination to provide the intended image for color keying and transparency percentage purposes, of the plurality images that a video respectfully incorporates).
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; display, by each display module of the plurality of display modules, a partial image corresponding to the image frame and the dither mask, and wherein the dither mask identified by each display module of the plurality of display modules is the same dither mask for the image frame (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; please note, the display processor memory modules {i.e., display modules} for allocating and identifying a display blended image necessitating the at least two for the alternate pixel overlapping dither masks for providing an instant image for a video {i.e., motion pictures/ multiple succeeding images/multiple image frames}, where the alternate pixel overlapping dither masks display image frame necessarily changes the two dither mask combination to provide the intended image for color keying and transparency percentage purposes, of the plurality images that a video respectfully incorporates).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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