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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 10, 19 and 20 each recites the limitation “the third group.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a “third group.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Song et al (US 2018/0082654 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Song et al (US 2018/0082654 A1) in view of Li et al (CN 111477170 A).
Please note: An English language translation of the Li et al (CN 111477170 A) document has been provided.
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a source driver [e.g., Fig. 1: 100; Fig. 16: 1100; Fig. 17: 1100a] comprising a plurality of interpolation amplifiers [e.g., Fig. 1: 110; Fig. 17: SD1-SDn; Paragraph 28: source driver may include a plurality of channel driving units (Fig. 1) to drive a plurality of source lines (Fig. 16: SL1-SLa)], wherein each interpolation amplifier comprises:
an input selection unit [e.g., Fig. 1: 112] that receives an upper limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 1: VH], a lower limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 1: VL], and pixel data [e.g., Fig. 1: D[K−1:0] ] corresponding to a gray level [e.g., Paragraph 32: gradation], and outputs logic values [e.g., Fig. 1: M; Fig. 2: Vin1-VinM; Figs. 4, 6, 7: Vin1-Vin8] according to the gray level;
an input stage [e.g., Fig. 2: 10-1m] that receives the logic values and outputs a corresponding current [e.g., Fig. 2: ILD, ILDB];
a load stage [e.g., Figs. 2, 3: 20] that converts and outputs the current to an analog voltage [e.g., Figs. 2, 3: Vout]; and
an output stage [e.g., Figs. 2, 3: 30] that outputs the analog voltage,
wherein the plurality of interpolation amplifiers are divided into a first group [e.g., Fig. 1: 1st pair of 110 for a 1st pair of source lines (Fig. 16: SL1, SL2)] to which first group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 6: D[0] ] are input and a second group [e.g., Fig. 1: 2nd pair of 110 for a 2nd pair of source lines (Fig. 16: SL1, SL2)] to which second group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 6: D[1] ] are input,
wherein the interpolation amplifiers included in the first group perform j-bit interpolation [e.g., Paragraph 98: 2-bit interpolation scheme] on the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Figs. 6-7: Vout], and
the interpolation amplifiers included in the second group perform k-bit interpolation [e.g., Paragraph 98: 3-bit interpolation scheme] on the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Figs. 6-7: Vout] (j, k: both natural numbers, k>j) (e.g., see Paragraphs 27-122).
Should it be shown Song discloses different bit interpolation schemes with insufficient specificity:
Li discloses the plurality of interpolation amplifiers [e.g., Fig. 3: 103, illustrated Amps] are divided into a first group [e.g., Fig. 3: Bout, Rout Amps] to which first group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 5: V32-V48] are input and a second group [e.g., Fig. 3: Gout, Rout Amps] to which second group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 5: V48-V255] are input,
wherein the interpolation amplifiers included in the first group perform j-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 2-bit interpolation] on the upper limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V48] and the lower limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V32] to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Fig. 3: Bout], and
the interpolation amplifiers included in the second group perform k-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 3-bit interpolation] on the upper limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V255] and the lower limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V48] to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Fig. 3: Gout] (j, k: both natural numbers, k>j) (e.g., see the Abstract, Paragraphs 4-32).
Song and Li are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of display driving circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Li’s different bit interpolation schemes with Song’s interpolation amplifiers, so as to reduce the number of gamma lines and circuit area.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Li’s different bit interpolation schemes with Song’s interpolation amplifiers as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 2, Song discloses the gamma voltage [e.g., Fig. 12: 1023 PGM] corresponding to the gray level of the first group is greater than the gamma voltage [e.g., Fig. 12: 256 PGM] corresponding to the gray level of the second group (e.g., see Paragraphs 85-89).
Li discloses the gamma voltage corresponding to the gray level of the first group is greater than the gamma voltage corresponding to the gray level of the second group (e.g., see Fig. 5; Paragraphs 27-32).
Regarding claim 3, Song discloses the entire gray level [e.g., Fig. 12: 256-1023 PGM] is divided only into the first group and the second group (e.g., see Paragraphs 85-89).
Li discloses the entire gray level [e.g., Fig. 5: V32-V255] is divided only into the first group and the second group (e.g., see Fig. 5; Paragraphs 27-32).
Regarding claim 4, Song discloses the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: 256-408 = 152 gradations (20%)] belonging to the first group is less than 50% of the total number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: 256-1023 = 767 (100%)], and the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: 409-1023 = 614 gradations (80%)] belonging to the second group is 50% or more of the total number of gray levels (e.g., see Paragraphs 85-89).
Li discloses the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V32-V48 = 16 (7%)] belonging to the first group is less than 50% of the total number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V32-V255 = 223 (100%)], and the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V48-V255 = 207 (93%)] belonging to the second group is 50% or more of the total number of gray levels (e.g., see Fig. 5; Paragraphs 27-32).
Regarding claim 5, Song discloses the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: 256-408 = 152 gradations (20%)] belonging to the first group is less than 25% of the total number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: 256-1023 = 767 (100%)], and the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: 409-1023 = 614 gradations (80%)] belonging to the second group is 75% or more of the total number of gray levels (e.g., see Paragraphs 85-89).
Li discloses the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V32-V48 = 16 (7%)] belonging to the first group is less than 25% of the total number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V32-V255 = 223 (100%)], and the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V48-V255 = 207 (93%)] belonging to the second group is 75% or more of the total number of gray levels (e.g., see Fig. 5; Paragraphs 27-32).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 5.
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 2018/0082654 A1) in view of Li et al (CN 111477170 A).
Regarding claim 6, Song discloses the plurality of interpolation amplifiers are further divided into a third group [e.g., Fig. 1: 3rd pair of 110 for a 3rd pair of source lines (Fig. 16: SL1, SL2)] to which third group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 6: D[2] ] are input, and the interpolation amplifiers included in the third group perform interpolation on the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Figs. 6-7: Vout] (e.g., see Paragraphs 27-122).
Song doesn’t appear to expressly disclose the third group performing 1-bit interpolation, as instantly claimed.
However, Li discloses the plurality of interpolation amplifiers [e.g., Fig. 3: 103, illustrated Amps] are divided into a first group [e.g., Fig. 3: Bout, Rout Amps] to which first group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 5: V8-V32] are input and a second group [e.g., Fig. 3: Gout, Rout Amps] to which second group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 5: V32-V48] are input,
wherein the interpolation amplifiers included in the first group perform j-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 1-bit interpolation] on the upper limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V32] and the lower limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V8] to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Fig. 3: Bout], and
the interpolation amplifiers included in the second group perform k-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 2-bit interpolation] on the upper limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V48] and the lower limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V32] to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Fig. 3: Gout] (j, k: both natural numbers, k>j) (e.g., see the Abstract, Paragraphs 4-32).
Moreover, Li discloses the plurality of interpolation amplifiers are further divided into a third group [e.g., Fig. 3: Bout, Gout Amps] to which third group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 5: V48-V255] are input, and the interpolation amplifiers included in the third group perform 1-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 3-bit interpolation] on the upper limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V255] and the lower limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V48] to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Fig. 3: Bout] (j, k, l: all natural numbers, l>k>j) (e.g., see the Abstract, Paragraphs 4-32).
Song and Li are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of display driving circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Li’s different bit interpolation schemes with Song’s interpolation amplifiers, so as to reduce the number of gamma lines and circuit area.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Li’s different bit interpolation schemes with Song’s interpolation amplifiers as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the gamma voltage corresponding to the gray level of the first group is greater than the gamma voltage corresponding to the gray level of the second group, and the gamma voltage corresponding to the gray level of the second group is greater than the gamma voltage corresponding to the gray level of the third group (e.g., see Fig. 5; Paragraphs 27-32).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the entire gray level [e.g., Fig. 5: V8-V255] is divided only into the first group, the second group, and the third group.
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V8-V32 = 24 (10%)] belonging to the first group is less than 30% of the total number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V8-V255 = 247 (100%)],
the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V48-V255 = 207 (84%)] belonging to the third group is 30% or more of the total number of gray levels, and
the remaining gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V32-V48 = 16 (6%)] belong to the second group (e.g., see Fig. 5; Paragraphs 27-32).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V8-V32 = 24 (10%)] belonging to the first group is less than 25% of the total number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V8-V255 = 247 (100%)],
the number of gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V48-V255 = 207 (84%)] belonging to the third group is 50% or more of the total number of gray levels, and
the remaining gray levels [e.g., Fig. 12: V32-V48 = 16 (6%)] belong to the second group (e.g., see Fig. 5; Paragraphs 27-32).
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached 'Notice of References Cited' are cited to further evidence the state of the art pertaining to interpolation amplifiers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
9 January 2026