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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2016/0117995).
Regarding claim 1
Lee et al. shows the electronic device comprising:
a display panel (120, see Fig. 4);
a light source disposed corresponding to the display panel (taken to be inherent to the display panel 120 that includes a plurality of pixels, see para. 0049); and
a controller (130) electrically connected to the display panel (120) and the light source (see Fig. 4 and para. 0048-0049),
wherein the light source is configured to provide a light with a brightness (taken to be luminance of the display panel, see para. 0041-0042), the light source refreshes the brightness (luminance) according to a signal generated by the controller (see para. 0057-0062), the light source begins refreshing the brightness (luminance) at a first time point (311 or 313, see Figs. 7-9, and para. 0065), the display panel is configured to display a displayed content (taken to be the input data signal DSIG, see Fig. 5 and para. 0065), the display panel begins refreshing the displayed content at a second time point (312), and the first time point (311) is different from the second time point (312) (see Fig. 7 and para. 0065-0067).
Regarding claim 2
Lee et al. further shows, wherein the display panel refreshes the displayed content according to another signal generated by the controller (taken to be VSYNC, CSIG or ODSIG, see Figs. 5-7, and para. 0056-0057).
Regarding claim 3
Lee et al. further shows, wherein the first time point (taken to be another time point such as 313, see Fig. 7), is later than the second time point (312, see Fig. 7 and para. 0065).
Regarding claim 4
Lee et al. further shows, wherein the display panel comprises: a source driver (110), see Fig. 4 and para. 0048), configured to generate a plurality of data signals (see Fig. 4 and para. 0048).
Regarding claim 6
Lee et al. further shows, wherein the display panel comprises a gate driver (140) configured to generate a plurality of scan signals (see Fig. 4 and para. 0048-0049).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0117995) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0189380).
Regarding claim 5
As discussed in the above rejection, Lee et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, however does not specifically show the number of light- emitting units of the light source is less than a number of pixels of the display panel (taken to be having each of the light-emitting units of the light source control a plurality of pixels, which is taken to be a plurality of light-emitting devices (such as LEDs, OLEDs etc.) for the display panel.
Wang et al. teaches that is well known to have each light-emitting units (such as LED SUBMODULES 114A-114H, see Fig. 1 and para. 0031-0032) control a plurality of LEDs (202) of the display panel (see Fig. 2 and para. 0032), causing the number of light- emitting units of the light source to be less than a number of pixels of the display panel, in order to increase refresh rate without increasing the clock rate thereby facilitating the LED design and circuit layout (see para. 0031).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee et al., such that it includes having each light-emitting unit (such as LED SUBMODULES 114A-114H, see Fig. 1 and para. 0031-0032) control a plurality of LEDs (202) of the display panel (see Fig. 2 and para. 0032), causing the number of light- emitting units of the light source to be less than a number of pixels of the display pane, as taught by Wang et al., in order to increase refresh rate without increasing the clock rate thereby facilitating the LED design and circuit layout, as suggested by Wang et al. in para. 0031.
Double Patenting
Note, even though no claims are indicated allowable or stated to include allowable subject matter, an obvious double patenting rejection is provided below in order to expedite prosecution.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,340,766.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1-3 include all of the limitations of the patent claim 4. The instant application claim 4 include all of the limitations of the patent claim 3. The instant application claim 5 include all of the limitations of the patent claim 4. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent and therefore each of the patent claims are taken to include all of the limitations of the instant application. Note also, the “controller” of the instant application is taken to be the same as the “timing controller” as recited in claims 4 and 5 of the patent claims. The instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,058.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1-4 include all of the limitations of the patent claim 4. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent and therefore each of the patent claims are taken to include all of the limitations of the instant application. Note also, the “controller” of the instant application is taken to be the same as the combination of the “timing controller” and “light source controller” as recited in claim 4 of the patent claims. The instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Albrecht et al. (US 2014/0267448), taken to be the closest prior art, shows the display device comprising:
a display panel (106);
a light source adjacent to the display panel (taken be a backlight, see para. 0017 and 0054);
a light source controller electrically connected to the light source (see Fig. 1); and
a timing controller (104) electrically connected to the light source controller and the display panel and comprising (see Fig. 1):
a decoding unit (see para. 0028);
a first processing unit electrically connected to the decoding unit and the display panel (taken to be a combination of the CPU 102 and T-CON 104, see Fig. 1 and para. 0019); and
a second processing unit electrically connected to the decoding unit and the light source controller (taken to be a combination of the CPU 102 and T-CON 104, see Fig. 1 and para. 0019),
wherein the decoding unit provides a refresh signal to the first processing unit and the second processing unit so that the display panel refreshes displayed content in a first refresh sequence according to a plurality of first refresh rates (see para. 0012 and 0027-0028) and the light source refreshes brightness in a second refresh sequence according to a plurality of second refresh rates (see para. 0029-0037).
Li et al. (US 2022/0293028), shows a display device having a display panel including a light source (taken to be a light emitting device), a timing controller connected to the display panel and light source and having the timing controller controls a refresh signal for display content (see the abstract, Figs. 1-11 and para. 0021-0039).
Sampsell et al. (US 2009/0267953), shows a display device having a display panel including a light source (taken to be a light emitting device), a timing controller connected to the display panel and light source and having the timing controller controls a refresh signal for display content (see the abstract, Figs. 1-14 and para. 0036-0062).
Verbeure (US 2015/0339994), shows a display device having a display panel including a light source (taken to be a light emitting device), a timing controller connected to the display panel and light source and having the timing controller controls a refresh signal for display content (see the abstract, Figs. 1-6 and para. 0007-0030).
Chang et al. (US 2008/0225062), shows a display device having a display panel including a light source (taken to be a light emitting device), a timing controller connected to the display panel and light source and having the timing controller controls a refresh signal for display content (see the abstract, Figs. 3-6B and para. 0019-0027).
Pyo et al. (US 2017/0124958), shows a display device having a display panel including a light source (taken to be a light emitting device), a timing controller connected to the display panel and light source and having the timing controller controls a refresh signal for display content (see the abstract, Figs. 3-6B and para. 0019-0027).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD N EDUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. 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.
/MUHAMMAD N. EDUN/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2629
/MUHAMMAD N EDUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629