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 Objections
In light of the amendment filed 4/16/26, the objection to claims 2 and 12 for informalities is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn (US 2012/0147293) in view of Price et al. (US 2008/0100561).
Regarding claim 1, Dunn discloses a display control module, comprising: a first light source group comprising a plurality of first light sources (abstract, fig. 1, fig. 4, ¶ 3-7, ¶ 20-23, display backlight with first plurality of LEDs 105; see also ¶ 25-29);
a second light source group comprising a plurality of second light sources, the first light source group and the second light source group arranged alternately (fig. 1, fig. 4, ¶ 20-23, second (redundant) LEDs 120 adjacent to first LEDs 105; see also ¶ 25-29);
a sensing unit configured to detect whether the first light source group is abnormal (fig. 1, fig. 4, ¶ 20-23, system detects failure of first LEDs; see also ¶ 25-29, controller can detect failure in first LEDs by measuring current draw outside of an acceptable threshold);
and a control unit configured to control the second light source group to work when the first light source group is detected to be abnormal by the sensing unit (fig. 1, fig. 4, ¶ 20-23; see also ¶ 25-29, controllers 515 and 530).
Dunn fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of second light sources configured to form at least one passage, the plurality of second light sources in each of the at least one passage connected in series.
Price teaches the plurality of second light sources configured to form at least one passage, the plurality of second light sources in each of the at least one passage connected in series (fig. 2, ¶ 15-18, array of LED strings disclosed).
Dunn and Price are both directed to sensors for detecting a backlight malfunction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Dunn with the device of Price since such a modification manages LED backlight performance (Price, ¶ 7) and provides failure of one or more LEDs is automatically compensated (Price, ¶ 8).
Regarding claim 2, Dunn discloses wherein an operating power of the second light source group is less than an operating power of the first light source group (fig. 1, fig. 4, ¶ 20-23; see also ¶ 25-29, LEDs powered enough for the image to be viewable to complete the mission).
Regarding claim 3, Dunn discloses wherein the sensing unit comprises a current sensing element, the current sensing element is configured to detect whether a current of the first light source group is greater than a preset current range (fig. 1, fig. 4, ¶ 20-23, system detects failure of first LEDs; see also ¶ 25-29, controller can detect failure in first LEDs by measuring current draw outside of an acceptable threshold),
in response to the current sensing element detecting the current of the first light source group is greater than the preset current range, the first light source group is determined to be abnormal (fig. 1, fig. 4, ¶ 20-23, system detects failure of first LEDs; see also ¶ 25-29, controller can detect failure in first LEDs by measuring current draw outside of an acceptable threshold).
Regarding claim 5, Price further teaches wherein the sensing unit comprises a voltage sensing element, the voltage sensing element is configured to detect whether a voltage of the first light source group is greater than a preset voltage range, in response to the voltage sensing element detecting the voltage of the first light source group is greater than the preset voltage range, the first light source group is determined to be abnormal (abstract, fig. 2, ¶ 16-18, voltage measured to identify faults, e.g., an increased termination voltage indicates a short in an LED with the number of shorts determined by the excess voltage).
Regarding claim 6, Dunn discloses wherein the first light source group and the second light source group are arranged within an active area of a display panel; or the first light source group and the second light source group are arranged outside of the active area of the display panel (figs. 1-3, ¶ 20-28, back-lit and edge-lit embodiments disclosed).
Regarding claim 7, Dunn discloses wherein in a case that the first light source group and the second light source group are arranged within the active area of the display panel (fig. 1, ¶ 20-24),
the display control module further comprises a first power supply circuit and a second power supply circuit, the first power supply circuit is electrically connected to the first light source group and is configured to supply power to the first light source group, the second power supply circuit is electrically connected to the second light source group to supply power to the second light source group (fig. 1, fig. 4, ¶ 20-24; see also ¶ 29, current sources 510, 525).
Price further teaches in response to the first light source group been detected abnormal, the control unit is further configured to determine whether a number of the plurality of first light sources reaches a preset range, and the control unit further controls the second power supply circuit to supply power to the second light source group (fig. 2, ¶ 16-18, voltage measured to identify faults, e.g., an increased termination voltage indicates a short in an LED with the number of shorts determined by the excess voltage, illumination increased by an amount that offsets the number of shorted LEDs).
Regarding claim 8, Dunn discloses wherein the sensing unit is arranged on the first power supply circuit, the first power supply circuit is configured to provide working current to the first light source group (fig. 1, fig. 4, ¶ 20-24; see also ¶ 29, controller 515 can detect failure in first LEDs by measuring current draw outside of an acceptable threshold).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn in view of Price as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2004/0174332).
Regarding claim 4, Dunn in view of Price fails to explicitly disclose wherein the current sensing element comprises resistance detection type sensing elements and magnetic field detection type sensing elements.
However, Examiner takes official notice that the use of resistance detection type sensing elements for current sensing is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Dunn in view of Price with the well-known resistance detection type sensing elements since such a modification achieves the predictable result of accurately measuring current with conventional sensors. Applicant has not traversed Examiner's assertion of official notice in the reply filed 4/16/26, and thus the use of resistance detection type sensing elements for current sensing is taken to be admitted prior art [see MPEP 2144.03]).
Kim teaches magnetic field detection type sensing elements (abstract, figs. 1-4, ¶ 47-51, electromagnetic induction sensors disclosed, see also ¶ 101).
Dunn in view of Price and Kim are both directed to sensors for detecting a backlight malfunction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Dunn in view of Price with the device of Kim since such a modification prevents deterioration of the lamps and increases the life expectancy of the lamps (Kim, abstract, ¶ 11).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn in view of Price as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Cheang et al. (US 2005/0242742).
Regarding claim 9, Dunn discloses wherein in a case that the first light source group and the second light source group are arranged outside of the active area of the display panel (figs. 1-3, ¶ 20-28, edge-lit embodiments disclosed).
Dunn in view of Price fails to explicitly disclose the display control module further comprises a switching unit and a driving integrated circuit, the driving integrated circuit is connected to the first light source group or to the second light source group through the switching unit, in response to the first light source group not been detected abnormal, the control unit controls the switching unit to connect to the first light source group to supply power to the first light source group, and in response to the first light source group been detected abnormal, the control unit controls the switching unit connect to the second light source group to supply power to the second light source group.
Cheang teaches the display control module further comprises a switching unit and a driving integrated circuit, the driving integrated circuit is connected to the first light source group or to the second light source group through the switching unit (abstract, figs. 2-3, ¶ 15-20, redundant light source management system 110 uses to feedback to determine when to activate redundant light source; see also ¶ 23-28, switch system 118 disclosed; activating only one light source at a time is possible),
in response to the first light source group not been detected abnormal, the control unit controls the switching unit to connect to the first light source group to supply power to the first light source group, and in response to the first light source group been detected abnormal, the control unit controls the switching unit connect to the second light source group to supply power to the second light source group (abstract, figs. 2-3, ¶ 15-20, redundant light source management system 110 uses to feedback to determine when to activate redundant light source; see also ¶ 23-28, switch system 118 disclosed; activating only one light source at a time is possible).
Dunn in view of Price and Cheang are both directed to sensors for detecting a backlight malfunction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Dunn in view of Price with the device of Cheang since such a modification produces light of a desired quality for longer (Cheang, ¶ 3) to extend the life of the system (Cheang, ¶ 4).
Regarding claim 10, Dunn discloses wherein the sensing unit is arranged on the driving integrated circuit, the driving integrated circuit is configured to provide working current to the first light source group (fig. 4, ¶ 29, controllers 515 and 530 may be any type of application-specific integrated circuit).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights