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 .
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. Pub. No. US 2010/0156946 A1 [Kim].
1. Kim discloses a backlight control chip for driving a backlight module [¶¶ 33-34 signal generator 70 generates the signal synchronized with the horizontal synchronous signal, and the signal generated from the signal generator 70 is applied to the inverter 80, such that it controls the driving frequency of the backlight], comprising:
a boosting circuit [Fig. 2: 40, 70, 80 & ¶ 21] and a gating circuit [Fig. 2, 30 & ¶ 21 timing controller 40 controls the data driver 20 and the gate driver 30];
wherein an input terminal of the boosting circuit is electrically connected to a first signal terminal [where 62 is connected to 70], and an output terminal of the boosting circuit is electrically connected to a first input terminal of the gating circuit [by means of inverter 80];
a first control terminal of the gating circuit is electrically connected to a second signal terminal [terminal of 40 with 62], a second control terminal of the gating circuit is electrically connected to a third signal terminal [terminal of gate driver 30 with 40], and an output terminal of the gating circuit is electrically connected to the backlight module [by means of inverter where “electrically connected” (as opposed to input/output directed connected) includes all elements not isolated from each other].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Makino et al. Pub. No. US 2004/0008170 A1 [Makino].
16. Kim discloses a power supply providing chip [Fig. 2, 90], and a display driver chip [20]; wherein, the power supply providing chip is electrically connected to the backlight control chip [as shown generally], and the display driver chip [20], respectively; the display driver chip is electrically connected to the display module and the backlight control chip, respectively [as shown generally in Fig. 2]. Kim is silent on a logic control chip and a power supply providing chip AND a backlight power supply chip. However Makino teaches a logic circuit element in a backlight circuit [¶ 57]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Makino, since such a modification improves color contrasts. As per the multiple power chip, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim in view of Makino to meet these limitations, since duplication of parts of a device is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As per the specific locations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim in view of Makino, since rearranging the location of parts of an invention is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
20. The examiner takes official notice that it is notoriously old and well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a backlight for a near-eye display device as required by this claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim in view of Makino, since such a modification improves the portability of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
2. The fixed frequency limitations in combination with each and every other limitation when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
3. The stabilization limitations in combination with each and every other limitation when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
7. See reasons for claim 3.
15. The boosting limitations in combination with each and every other limitation when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
17. The frequency limitations in combination with each and every other limitation when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
18. See reasons for claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO POLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PT.
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.
/Gustavo Polo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622