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.
Status of Claims
This Office action is responsive to the Amendment filed 04/15/2026 (“Amendment 'A'”). Claims 1, 10, 11, 19, and 20 have been amended; no claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. The amendment has been entered.
Response to Amendment — Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 10 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/15/2026, is withdrawn in view of the amendment of claim 10 to depend from claim 6 and of claims 19-20 to depend from claim 16, which provides express antecedent basis for “the third group.”
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Song is withdrawn as to the claims as amended. The alternative ground under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Song in view of Li, previously stated in the same rejection, is maintained and restated below as applied to the amended claims. The new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action are necessitated by Applicant's amendment (see Conclusion).
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 1-20 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 1 and 11 were each amended to add: “wherein the entire range of gray levels is grouped into any one of the groups, and the gray levels that are input to the same group are interpolated using the same bits.” The added limitation renders claims 1 and 11 indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Claims 1 and 11 each recites the limitation “the groups.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim.
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art whether the above limitation is intended to refer to the earlier recited, “a first group,” “first group gray levels,” “a second group,” and/or “second group gray levels.”
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a first group” and “a second group” into which the plurality of interpolation amplifiers are divided, and separately recite “first group gray levels” and “second group gray levels”.
The intended antecedent of “the groups” in the added limitation cannot be determined.
If “the groups” refers to the recited first and second groups of interpolation amplifiers, the limitation requires gray levels to be “grouped into” collections of circuit elements - a grouping of data values into groups of amplifiers whose meaning is unclear, particularly where the claims elsewhere recite gray levels being input to (not grouped into) those amplifier groups. If “the groups” instead refers to groupings of gray levels, no such groups are previously recited; “first group gray levels” and “second group gray levels” are sets of gray levels named by reference to the amplifier groups, and are not themselves recited as “groups.” See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 compound the ambiguity: claims 6 and 16 introduce “a third group” receiving “third group gray levels,” yet if “the groups” of claims 1 and 11 denotes the first and second groups and the entire range is grouped into “any one of” them, it is unclear what gray levels remain to be input to the third group, or whether “the groups” is intended to enlarge as further groups are recited.
Claims 1 and 11 each recites the limitation “the same bits.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim.
The claims contain no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of “bits.”
Moreover, it would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art whether the above limitation is intended to refer to the earlier recited, “j-bit interpolation” and/or “k-bit interpolation.”
Neither claim earlier recites “bits”; “J-bit interpolation” and “k-bit interpolation” recite interpolation bit depths adjectivally. It is unclear whether “interpolated using the same bits” requires (i) interpolation using the same number of bits, or (ii) interpolation using the same bits of the pixel data (i.e., the same bit positions or lines). The two readings differ in scope: the first is satisfied by any group employing a uniform interpolation depth, while the second requires identical data-bit lines to drive the interpolation for every gray level of the group. Applicant's Remarks characterize the corresponding feature of the art as use of “the same number of bits” (Remarks at 7) - language the claims do not recite - underscoring the ambiguity.
Claims 1 and 11 each recites the limitation “the entire range of gray levels.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim.
The claims contain no earlier recitation or limitation of a “range.”
Moreover, it would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art whether the above limitation is intended to refer to the earlier recited, “a gray level,” “first group gray levels,” and/or “second group gray levels.”
The claims earlier recite “a gray level” (singular) and the “first group gray levels” and “second group gray levels”; no “range of gray levels” is previously recited. It is unclear whether “the entire range of gray levels” refers to (i) the aggregate of the recited first group gray levels and second group gray levels - in which case the limitation is circular, since those gray levels are by definition in the groups - or (ii) the full range of gray levels representable by the received pixel data, a range not previously recited. The two readings differ materially in scope.
Claims 1 and 11 each recites the limitation “the gray levels.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim.
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art whether the above limitation is intended to refer to the earlier recited, “a gray level,” “first group gray levels,” and/or “second group gray levels.”
The claims earlier recite “a gray level” (singular) and the “first group gray levels” and “second group gray levels”; no “range of gray levels” is previously recited. It is unclear whether “the entire range of gray levels” refers to (i) the aggregate of the recited first group gray levels and second group gray levels - in which case the limitation is circular, since those gray levels are by definition in the groups - or (ii) the full range of gray levels representable by the received pixel data, a range not previously recited. The two readings differ materially in scope.
Claims 1 and 11 each recites the limitation “the same group.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim.
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art whether the above limitation is intended to refer to the earlier recited, “a first group,” “first group gray levels,” “a second group,” and/or “second group gray levels.”
“The same group” is a comparative expression without a recited comparand: no particular group is under discussion to which another can be “the same.” It is further noted that “input to the same group” is consistent with the amplifier-group reading of “group” (the claims recite gray levels input to the amplifier groups), whereas “grouped into any one of the groups” earlier in the very same limitation is inconsistent with that reading, as set forth in item (a); the two halves of the added limitation thus point to different constructions of “group.”
Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims.
Claim interpretation for purposes of examination. In accordance with MPEP § 2173.06(11), the claims are examined below under the following construction, which is consistent with the specification [US 2025/0384810 A1: Paragraph 33 (“divides the entire gray level range into at least two groups”); Paragraphs 37-40 (j-bit interpolation for all gray levels of group Gl; k-bit for all gray levels of group G2)] and with Applicant's Remarks:
“the entire range of gray levels” is construed as all gray levels representable by the received pixel data;
“the groups” is construed as the recited groups of interpolation amplifiers (the first and second groups; also the third group where recited);
“grouped into any one of the groups” is construed as each gray level of the entire range being input to one of the recited groups; and
“the same bits” is construed as the same number of bits. Prior art is applied under this construction.
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.
Claims 1-20 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).
Please note: an English language translation of the Li et al (CN 111477170 A) document is of record (PTO-892 mailed 01/15/2026, NPL). Li is cited herein by the paragraph numbering of that translation.
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: “a plurality of channel driving units 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 interpolation amplifiers e.g., Paragraph 27: “An interpolation scheme of K bits may be applied to a source driver 100 of FIG. 1 based on the lower K bits”] on the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Figs. 6-7: Vout; Paragraph 32], and
the interpolation amplifiers
wherein the entire range of gray levels [e.g., Paragraph 27: the pixel data of N bits; Paragraph 32: the “output voltage VOUT may be a gradation voltage corresponding to gradation of the pixel data” - every gradation of the N-bit pixel data is produced by the interpolation driving circuit 110] is grouped into any one of the groups, and the gray levels that are input to the same group are interpolated using the same bits [e.g., Paragraphs 27, 32: a single K-bit scheme - the same number of bits, K, for all gradations]
(e.g., see Paragraphs 27-122).
Song does not expressly disclose, within a single embodiment, the plurality of interpolation amplifiers being divided into first and second groups to which respective first and second group gray levels are input, with the first group performing j-bit interpolation and the second group performing k-bit interpolation (j, k: both natural numbers, k>j) -- that is, interpolation amplifier groups concurrently operating at different interpolation bit depths, with the gray levels of the entire range grouped into any one of such groups.
However, Li discloses a plurality of interpolation amplifiers [e.g., Fig. 3: channel amplifiers (Rout, Gout, Bout outputs); Paragraph 27] divided into
a first group [e.g., Fig. 3: Bout, Rout Amps] to which first group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 5: V32-V48 (the 2-bit interpolation region, gray levels 32-47); Paragraph 28] 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 (the 3-bit interpolation region, gray levels 48-255); Paragraph 28] are input,
wherein the interpolation amplifiers of the first group perform j-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 2-bit interpolation; Paragraph 28] on the upper limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V481 and the lower limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V32] to output an interpolated voltage [e.g., Fig. 3: Bout], and
the interpolation amplifiers of the second group perform k-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 3-bit interpolation; Paragraph 28] 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 = 2, k = 3; j, k: both natural numbers, k > j),
each of Li's interpolation regions employing a single, uniform interpolation bit depth for all gray levels of that region [e.g., Paragraph 28: “the grey scale 32 to the grey scale 47 is a 2-bit interpolation region”; “for grey scale 48 to grey 255 is 3-bit interpolation region”] (see the Abstract; Paragraphs 13-17, 27-31).
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 [e.g., Li at Paragraph 17: “using multi-stage interpolation method, can more obviously reduce the number of gamma line, finally the integrated circuit area of the driving chip of the OLED product is greatly reduced”; Paragraph 13].
In the combination, Song’s source driver - in which every gradation of the N-bit pixel data is generated by the interpolation driving circuitry [e.g., Paragraphs 27, 32] is modified such that its interpolation amplifiers are divided into gray-level-range groups operating at different interpolation bit depths as taught by Li [e.g., Paragraphs 14, 28].
The entire range of gray levels of Song’s pixel data is thereby grouped into any one of the depth-differentiated groups, and the gray levels input to any given group are interpolated using the same (number of) bits, as recited under the construction stated in item 6 above.
Retaining Song’s full-range interpolation coverage in making this modification would itself have been obvious:
Li presents the interpolation-region boundaries as adjustable design parameters selected “considering the characteristic of the gamma voltage curve” [e.g., Paragraphs 10, 28; Paragraph 15: “Preferably”], and
Li’s own development shrank the non-interpolation region - from gray levels below 32 in the one-level scheme [e.g., Fig. 4; Paragraph 101 to gray levels below 8 in the multi-level scheme [e.g., Fig. 5; Paragraph 28] - in direct service of Li’s stated objective of reducing gamma lines [e.g., Paragraphs 13, 17], each non-interpolated gray level costing a dedicated gamma line whereas interpolated gray levels share taps [e.g., Paragraph 14: G = (first grey value) x 1 + (second grey value first grey value)/2 + . . .].
Extending interpolation across the remaining lowest gray levels of Song’s full range continues the very progression Li teaches, with the predictable result of further gamma-line and area reduction.
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, Li discloses the gamma voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: gamma voltages of the V32- V48 region] corresponding to the gray level of the first group is greater than the gamma voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: gamma voltages of the V48-V255 region] corresponding to the gray level of the second group (see Fig. 5: gamma voltage decreasing with increasing gray level; Paragraphs 27-28).
Regarding claim 3, in the combination set forth for claim 1, the entire gray level range of Song’s pixel data is divided among Li’s depth-differentiated interpolation groups.
Employing exactly two such groups - the entire gray level divided only into the first group and the second group - would have been an obvious selection within Li’s expressly parameterized multi-level scheme [e.g., Paragraphs 14-15: the number and boundaries of the interpolation regions presented as selectable values],
the number of depth tiers being a matter of matching the tier count to the characteristic zones of the gamma curve [e.g., Paragraphs 10, 28], with predictable results.
Li further evidences two-region partitioning of the gray range as conventional [e.g., Fig. 4; Paragraph 10: a single interpolation region adjoining the non-interpolated region].
Regarding claim 4, in the combination for claim 1, with the region boundary at gray level 48 per Li’s exemplary third grey value [e.g., Paragraph 15] and the gray levels below the boundary constituting the first group, the number of gray levels belonging to the first group [e.g., gray levels 0-47: 48 of 256, i.e., 18.75%] is less than 50% of the total number of gray levels [e.g., 256 levels; see Li Paragraph 15: fourth grey value 2561, and the number of gray levels belonging to the second group [e.g., gray levels 48-255: 208 of 256, i.e., 81.25%] is 50% or more of the total number of gray levels.
Further and in the alternative, the placement of the region boundary is a result-effective variable expressly tied by Li to the characteristics of the gamma voltage curve [e.g., Paragraphs 10, 15, 28] and to the resulting gamma-line count [e.g., Paragraph 14];
Li’s exemplary boundaries (grey values 8, 32, 48 of a 256-level range [e.g., Paragraph 15]) each confine the finer-treatment region to a small fraction of the range, and selecting a boundary such that the first group comprises fewer than half of the gray levels would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization with predictable results (see Paragraphs 13-15, 27-29).
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination and reasoning applied for claim 4 likewise meet this claim: the first group [e.g., gray levels 0-47: 18.75%] comprises less than 25% of the total number of gray levels, and the second group [e.g., gray levels 48-255: 81.25%] comprises 75% or more (see Paragraphs 13-15, 27-29).
Regarding claim 6, Song discloses the plurality of interpolation amplifiers are further divided into a third group [e.g., Fig. 1: a 3rd pair of 110 for a 3rd pair of source lines (Fig. 16: SL1-SLa)] 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] (see Paragraphs 27-122).
Song does not expressly disclose the third group performing 1-bit interpolation (j, k, l: all natural numbers, l > k > j), as instantly claimed.
However, Li discloses the plurality of interpolation amplifiers [e.g., Fig. 3: channel amplifiers (Rout, Gout, Bout outputs); Paragraph 27] divided into
a first group [e.g., Fig. 3: Bout, Rout Amps] to which first group gray levels [e.g., Fig. 5: V8-V32 (the 1-bit interpolation region, gray levels 8-31); Paragraph 28] 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 (the 2-bit interpolation region, gray levels 32-47); Paragraph 28] are input,
the first group performing j-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 1-bit interpolation] on the upper limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V321 and the lower limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V8], and
the second group performing k-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 2-bit interpolation] on the upper limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V481 and the lower limit voltage [e.g., Fig. 5: V32].
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 (the 3-bit interpolation region, gray levels 48- 255); Paragraph 28] are input,
the third group performing 1-bit interpolation [e.g., Fig. 5: 3-bit interpolation; Paragraph 28] 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 = 1, k = 2, I = 3; j, k, l: all natural numbers, l > k > j) (see the Abstract; Paragraphs 13-17, 27-31).
The analogous-art status, the motivations to combine, and the combination articulated for claim 1 apply equally here, with Li’s three depth-differentiated interpolation regions supplying the recited first, second, and third groups across the entire range of Song’s pixel data.
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 (see Fig. 5: gamma voltage decreasing with increasing gray level across the 1-bit, 2-bit, and 3-bit interpolation regions; Paragraphs 27-28).
Regarding claim 8, in the combination set forth for claims 1 and 6, the entire gray level range of Song’s pixel data is divided among Li’s three depth-differentiated interpolation groups - the entire gray level divided only into the first group, the second group, and the third group. Li’s multi-level scheme itself employs exactly three interpolation depth tiers [e.g., Fig. 5; Paragraph 28: 1-bit, 2-bit, and 3-bit interpolation regions];
extending the finest (1-bit) tier across the remaining lowest gray levels per the rationale set forth for claim 1 yields exactly three groups spanning the entire range, with predictable results (see Paragraphs 13-15, 27-29).
Regarding claim 9, in the combination (Li’s exemplary boundaries at grey values 32 and 48 [e.g., Paragraph 15], the lowest gray levels absorbed into the 1-bit group per the claim-1 rationale), the number of gray levels belonging to the first group [e.g., gray levels 0- 31: 32 of 256, i.e., 12.5%] is less than 30% of the total number of gray levels [e.g., 256],
the number of gray levels belonging to the third group [e.g., gray levels 48-255: 208 of 256, i.e., 81.25%] is 30% or more of the total number of gray levels, and
the remaining gray levels [e.g., gray levels 32-47] belong to the second group.
Further and in the alternative, the boundary placements are result-effective variables per the reasoning set forth for claim 4 (see Paragraphs 13-15, 27-29).
Regarding claim 10 (as amended, depending from claim 6), the combination and reasoning applied for claim 9 likewise meet this claim:
the first group [e.g., gray levels 0-31: 12.5%] comprises less than 25% of the total number of gray levels,
the third group [e.g., gray levels 48-255: 81.25%] comprises 50% or more, and
the remaining gray levels [e.g., gray levels 32-47] belong to the second group (see Paragraphs 13-15, 27-29).
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a display apparatus [e.g., Song: Fig. 16: display device 1000; Paragraph 111] comprising limitations otherwise corresponding to those of claim 1, and 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.
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 (as amended, depending from claim 16), this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 9, the recited proportions being met by the combination as set forth there independently of the exclusive-division limitation of claim 8's chain.
Regarding claim 20 (as amended, depending from claim 16), this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 15 April 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments directed to the rejection of claims 10 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Remarks at 6) are persuasive in view of the amended dependencies; that rejection is withdrawn (item 2 above). New issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) arising from the amendment to claims 1 and 11 are set forth in item 5 above.
Arguments that Song fails to disclose the amended limitation and the two-group j-/k-bit interpolation (Remarks at 6-7).
Applicant argues that Song “applies a fixed K-bit interpolation scheme uniformly, such that the same number of bits is used to generate interpolation voltages”, and is “silent as to dividing an entire range of gray levels into groups”.
As to the withdrawn anticipation ground, the arguments are moot in view of the amendment.
As to the maintained ground under 35 U.S.C. 103, the arguments are not persuasive because they are directed to Song individually, whereas the rejection is based on the combination of Song and Li. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection does not rely on Song for concurrent operation of amplifier groups at different interpolation bit depths; that feature is supplied by Li [e.g., Fig. 5; Paragraphs 14, 28].
Song is relied upon for the source driver architecture and interpolation amplifier construction, and for interpolation spanning every gradation of the N-bit pixel data [e.g., Paragraphs 27, 32] full-range coverage that Applicant's own characterization of Song (“uniformly”) confirms.
Argument that Li’s non-interpolation region defeats the motivation to reach the entire range (Remarks at 7-8).
Applicant argues that because “FIGS. 4 and 5 of Li clearly show that there are grays that belong to a non-interpolation group that is not interpolated”, one skilled in the art “would not be motivated to change the teachings of Li” to arrive at the claimed grouping of the entire range.
This is not persuasive, for at least the following reasons.
(i) The rejection modifies Song in view of Li; it does not bodily incorporate Li’s gamma-tap allocation into Song, nor propose Li’s chip as the base device.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Li is applied for its teaching of gray-range-dependent interpolation bit depths;
Song’s architecture, in which every gradation is produced by interpolation [e.g., Paragraphs 32], is retained.
(ii) Li does not teach away.
Li nowhere criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages interpolating the lowest gray levels; its non-interpolation region is a design allocation within its exemplary tap budget, with the region boundaries expressly presented as selectable parameters [e.g., Paragraphs 14-15: “Preferably, the first gray value is gray scale 8”].
The mere disclosure of alternative designs, or of a preferred configuration, does not teach away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
(iii) Li’s own progression runs opposite to Applicant's inference.
Between the one-level scheme [e.g., Fig. 4; Paragraph 10: gray levels below 32 non-interpolated] and the inventive multi-level scheme [e.g., Fig. 5; Paragraph 28: gray levels below 8 non-interpolated], Li reduced the non-interpolated region by three-quarters in service of its stated objective of reducing gamma lines [e.g., Paragraphs 13, 17] -- each non-interpolated gray level requiring its own dedicated gamma line, whereas interpolated gray levels share taps [e.g., Paragraph 14].
Extending interpolation across the remaining lowest gray levels -- as Song’s architecture already does across its entire range continues the direction Li itself teaches.
(iv) The state of the art corroborates the combination.
Applicant's own specification acknowledges that “in conventional technology, interpolation is performed using a fixed number of bits across the entire gray level range” [e.g., instant application, US 2025/0384810 A1: Paragraph 4] -- entire-range interpolation coverage is the admitted conventional baseline that Song exemplifies.
Further, Cho (US 2011/0096054 A1, of record on the PTO-892 mailed 01/15/2026) evidences that partitioning the gray/voltage range into areas and treating the areas differently within an interpolation-amplifier source driver -- resistor strings outputting “analog reference voltages at different ratios according to three areas divided based on a voltage range of the N-bit digital data” [e.g., Cho: Paragraph 15], with all areas routed through the interpolation amplifier [e.g., Cho: Paragraphs 34-36] -- was a known circuit-area-reduction technique [e.g., Cho: Paragraph 14] well before Li.
Cho is cited as evidence of the state of the art and is not relied upon as a basis of the rejection.
Applicant's statement that “Song does not describe dividing any groups having a particular color at all” (Remarks at 7) is noted; the claims do not recite color, and the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., dividing any groups having a particular color) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Dependent claims. Applicant relies on dependency from the independent claims (Remarks at 7-8); those arguments are addressed by the foregoing. It is noted that the Remarks twice refer to claims 11-15 and 16-20 as depending from “claim 10”; the Examiner understands these as references to claims 11 and 16, respectively, and has treated the arguments accordingly.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of any new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
31 July 2026
Prosecution Insights