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 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 12(b), “Movie Mode” should be changed to “Dynamics Mode” in view of para. [0192] of the original specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to control the plurality of driving devices to adjust a current value that is supplied to at least one of the red LED, the green LED, or the blue LED, according to an image mode”. However, the instant claim clearly indicates there are more than one red LED, more than one green LED and more than one blue LED (Note the recited features “each dimming block of the plurality of dimming blocks comprising a plurality of light emitting devices” and “each light emitting device of the plurality of light emitting devices comprises a red light emitting diode (LED), a green LED, and a blue LED”). it is unclear what is referred to by “the red LED”, “the green LED” and “the blue LED” and whether adjusting a current value of a LED of a color among red, green and blue colors is applied to the entire backlight unit/each dimming block (e.g., in execution of global dimming mode) or some dimming block(s) (e.g., in execution of local dimming mode). In this examination, it is interpreted that adjusting a current value of a LED of a color among red, green and blue colors is applied to the entire backlight unit/each dimming block.
Claims 2-12 are rejected because they depend on claim 1 and further recites “the red LED”, “the green LED” or “the blue LED” (if applicable).
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claims 14-15 are rejected because they depend on claim 1 and further recites “the red LED”, “the green LED” or “the blue LED” (if applicable).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kurita (US 2016/0284283) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0036837).
Regarding claim 1, Kurita teaches a display apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid crystal panel (Fig. 1: color liquid-crystal panel 105);
memory (Fig. 4: non-volatile memory 126) storing instructions (Figs. 5, 16: flowchart resulting from stored instructions);
a backlight unit (Figs. 1-2: LED substrate 101 and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 112 disposed on LED substrate 101) configured to provide light to the liquid crystal panel; and
at least one processor (Fig. 4: microcomputer 125, image processing unit 160) configured to control the liquid crystal panel and the backlight unit,
wherein the backlight unit comprises:
a substrate (Figs. 1-2: LED substrate 101);
a plurality of dimming blocks (Figs. 2-3: light-emitting block 111) arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns (Figs. 2-3: light-emitting blocks 111 disposed in a matrix fashion in five rows by seven columns, as an example) on the substrate,
a plurality of driving devices (Fig. 4: LED drivers 120) configured to drive the plurality of dimming blocks,
wherein each light emitting device ([0062]: “More specifically, one R-LED, two G-LEDs and one B-LED are provided in each light-emitting block”), a green LED ([0062]: “More specifically, one R-LED, two G-LEDs and one B-LED are provided in each light-emitting block”), and a blue LED ([0062]: “More specifically, one R-LED, two G-LEDs and one B-LED are provided in each light-emitting block”), and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to control the plurality of driving devices to adjust a current value that is supplied to at least one of the red LED, the green LED, or the blue LED, according to an image mode (Fig. 4: mode setting unit 170 for setting image processing unit 160 to a driver mode; Fig. 5: “Non-LD Mode” branch corresponding to a driver mode with no local dimming executed and with implementation of adjusting a current value supplied to LED of a selected color; Fig. 10 and [0094]-[0095]: current value supplied to green LED, i.e., G-LED, is reduced and different from current value supplied to red LED and blue LED in non-LD mode; Fig. 18: Non-LD mode in second embodiment, wherein current value supplied to green LED G-LED and current value supplied to blue LED B-LED are reduced).
Kurita does not further teach each dimming block of the plurality of dimming blocks comprising a plurality of light emitting devices. Instead, Kurita teaches each dimming block of the plurality of dimming blocks comprises a light emitting device that includes one R-LED, two G-LEDs and one B-LED.
The differentiating feature indicates each LED module/dimming block of a backlight unit comprises a plurality of LED pixels (i.e., light emitting devices), each of which is formed of LEDs of different colors. However, such an arrangement is not new in the related art.
Lee, for instance, teaches in [0056] each LED module of a plurality of LED modules forming a backlight unit comprises a plurality LED pixels each of which includes LEDs of different colors.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to apply Lee’s technique to Kurita’s technique configuring each dimming block of Kurita’s backlight unit to be a LED module formed of a plurality of LED pixels/light emitting devices to optimize a total number of dimming blocks and simplify a local dimming operation.
Regarding claim 2, Kurita further teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to control the plurality of driving devices to reduce the current value that is supplied to the at least one of the red LED, the green LED, or the blue LED according to the image mode (Fig. 10: current value that is supplied to green LED G-LED is reduced; Fig. 18: current value that is supplied to green LED G-LED and current value that is supplied to blue LED B-LED are reduced).
Regarding claim 3, Kurita does not further teach the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to control the plurality of driving devices to supply current corresponding to the reduced current value to the plurality of dimming blocks based on obtained image information ([0082]: “the mode setting unit 170 may set (change) the drive mode automatically in accordance with the input image data 150”).
Regarding claim 5, Kurita further teach the display apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to control the plurality of driving devices to supply the current corresponding to the image information to each dimming block of the plurality of dimming blocks based on the image information ([0082]: “the mode setting unit 170 may set (change) the drive mode automatically in accordance with the input image data 150”; Examiner’s Note: in case of Non-LD mode being set, same current setting is implemented for each dimming block).
Regarding claim 7, Kurita does not further teach the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an input device ([0082]: “The mode setting unit 170 sets the drive mode in accordance with a user operation. The user operation is a user operation for selecting one drive mode from a list of a plurality of drive modes, for example. A non screen display (OSD) image, for example, is used for the list” implies an input device for a user operation/selection on a list of a plurality of driver modes) configured to obtain a user input,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to change the image mode based on the user input obtained through the input device ([0082]).
Regarding claim 8, Kurita further teach the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to automatically change the image mode based on image information ([0082]: “the mode setting unit 170 may set (change) the drive mode automatically in accordance with the input image data 150”).
Regarding claim 11, Kurita further teach the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of driving devices are provided on an upper surface of the substrate or a lower surface of the substrate (Fig. 2: LED driver surrounded by LEDs 112 in each light-emitting block 111).
Regarding claim 12, Kurita further teach the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein each dimming block of the plurality of dimming blocks comprises a preset number of light emitting devices (Fig. 2; Examiner’s Note: for a display apparatus ready to use, a preset number of light emitting devices has been integrated to each dimming block).
Regarding claim 13, Kurita teaches a display apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid crystal panel (Fig. 1: color liquid-crystal panel 105);
memory (Fig. 4: non-volatile memory 126) storing instructions (Figs. 5, 16: flowchart resulting from stored instructions);
a backlight unit (Figs. 1-2: LED substrate 101 and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 112 disposed on LED substrate 101) configured to provide light to the liquid crystal panel;
an input device configured to obtain a user input ([0082]: “The mode setting unit 170 sets the drive mode in accordance with a user operation. The user operation is a user operation for selecting one drive mode from a list of a plurality of drive modes, for example. A non screen display (OSD) image, for example, is used for the list” implies an input device is used for a user operation/selection on a list of a plurality of driver modes); and
at least one processor (Fig. 4: microcomputer 125, image processing unit 160) configured to control the liquid crystal panel and the backlight unit,
wherein the backlight unit comprises:
a substrate (Figs. 1-2: LED substrate 101);
a plurality of dimming blocks (Figs. 2-3: light-emitting block 111) arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns (Figs. 2-3: light-emitting blocks 111 disposed in a matrix fashion in five rows by seven columns, as an example) on the substrate,
a plurality of driving devices (Fig. 4: LED drivers 120) configured to drive the plurality of dimming blocks,
wherein each light emitting device ([0062]: “More specifically, one R-LED, two G-LEDs and one B-LED are provided in each light-emitting block”), a green LED ([0062]: “More specifically, one R-LED, two G-LEDs and one B-LED are provided in each light-emitting block”), and a blue LED ([0062]: “More specifically, one R-LED, two G-LEDs and one B-LED are provided in each light-emitting block”), and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to control the plurality of driving devices to adjust a current value that is supplied to at least one of the red LED, the green LED, or the blue LED based on a change of an image mode according to a user's input of selecting another image mode, obtained through the input device ([0082]: “The mode setting unit 170 sets the drive mode in accordance with a user operation. The user operation is a user operation for selecting one drive mode from a list of a plurality of drive modes, for example. A non screen display (OSD) image, for example, is used for the list).
Kurita does not further teach each dimming block of the plurality of dimming blocks comprising a plurality of light emitting devices. Instead, Kurita teaches each dimming block of the plurality of dimming blocks comprises a light emitting device that includes one R-LED, two G-LEDs and one B-LED.
The differentiating feature indicates each LED module/dimming block of a backlight unit comprises a plurality of LED pixels (i.e., light emitting devices), each of which is formed of LEDs of different colors. However, such an arrangement is not new in the related art.
Lee, for instance, teaches in [0056] each LED module of a plurality of LED modules forming a backlight unit comprises a plurality LED pixels, each of which includes LEDs of different colors.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to apply Lee’s technique to Kurita’s technique configuring each dimming block of Kurita’s backlight unit to be a LED module formed of a plurality of LED pixels/light emitting devices to optimize a total number of dimming blocks and simplify a local dimming operation.
Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita (US 2016/0284283) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0036837), and further in view of Shigeta et al. (US 2018/0293929).
Regarding claim 4, Kurita in view of Lee does not further teach the display apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to reduce the current value that is supplied to the green LED and the blue LED through pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) control and supply the current corresponding to the reduced current value to the plurality of dimming blocks.
The differentiating limitation indicates reducing the current value is achieved through a specific approach, i.e., pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) control. The approach is not new, however.
Shigeta, for instance, teaches in [0103] “the pixel circuit 400 may control the luminance of the light emitting element 130 by performing pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) for varying the amplitude of the drive current Id and pulse width modulation (PWM) for varying the pulse width of the drive current Id in accordance with various kinds of control signals and data signal”.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to combine Shigeta’s technique with Kurita’s technique in view of Lee to achieve the same expected result for controlling a LED luminance.
Regarding claim 6, Kurita in view of Lee does not further teach the display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the display apparatus to supply the current corresponding to the image information to each dimming block of the plurality of dimming blocks through pulse width modulation (PWM) control.
Kurita teaches in Figs. 10 and 19 while a current value for a color is reduced the duty ratio for the color is adjusted accordingly. Kurita, however, does not further teach the duty ratio adjustment is achieved through pulse width modulation (PWM) control. However, using pulse width modulation (PWM) control to achieve duty ratio adjustment of a current pulse is not new in the related art.
Shigeta, for instance, teaches in [0103] “the pixel circuit 400 may control the luminance of the light emitting element 130 by performing pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) for varying the amplitude of the drive current Id and pulse width modulation (PWM) for varying the pulse width of the drive current Id in accordance with various kinds of control signals and data signal”.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to combine Shigeta’s technique with Kurita’s technique to achieve the same expected result for controlling a LED luminance.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita (US 2016/0284283) in view of Lee (US 2022/0036837), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0055132, referred to as Lee ’132 thereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Kurita in view of Lee does not further teach the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein each driving device of the plurality of driving devices is configured to supply driving current to the plurality of light emitting devices of at least two dimming blocks.
The differentiating feature indicates a technique using one driving device to control more than one dimming block. The technique is not new, however.
Lee ’132, for instance, teaches in Figs. 13-14, [0147], [0162] the driving device 300 is used to control at least two dimming blocks 200.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to apply Lee’s technique to Kurita’s technique in view of Lee to achieve lower cost and smaller size for the display apparatus.
Regarding claim 10, Kurita in view of Lee and Lee ’132 further teaches the display apparatus of claim 9, further comprising:
a plurality of current supply lines (Lee ’132: Fig. 13: output terminal of each driving device 300 for providing current to respective dimming blocks) through which each driving device of the plurality of driving devices supplies driving current,
wherein the plurality of current supply lines are configured to supply driving current to LEDs having a same color (Kurita: Fig. 18; Examiner’s Note: because LEDs of different colors are driven with different current value, it is necessary that each current supply is configured to supply driving currents to LEDs having a same color).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0144857 by Shin et al. discloses in [0057] “the backlight unit 200 may be driven by a driving current in which an output range is reduced in the low grayscale mode or the high grayscale mode”.
US Patent No. 10,971,057 teaches in Fig. 11 when a value of an input image is less than a threshold value, the switching frequency of the switching element may increase by reducing the intensity of the current provided to the LED module in step S1120.
US 2016/0203774 by Ahn teaches driving a backlight of a liquid crystal display based on a global dimming method for controlling a luminance of an entire display surface and a local dimming method for locally controlling the luminance of the display surface.
US 2016/0335957 by Fu teaches a backlight brightness adjustment method including adjustment of an adjusted duty cycle and drive current of each dimming area of a backlight unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30 pm-6:00 pm.
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 Lee can be reached at 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.
/XUEMEI ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights