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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2025/0029540).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi discloses a display driver circuit (2 and 4) comprising:
a receiver (21) to receive display data (image signal A1) through a display interface (102), (figs. 1 and 4, [0027]);
a detector (24 and 25) to detect whether the display driver circuit enters a non-active state (pause mode) in which the display driver circuit stops refreshing a display panel (1), (i.e. when the receiver 21 receives the control signal D1 including a signal used to transition from the display mode to the pause mode, the transition operation controller 24 causes the level shifter controller 22 and the image signal controller 23 to stop operating, hence the display panel 1 stops refreshing), (figs. 1 and 4, [0028]); and
a power control circuit (4), coupled to the detector (24 and 25), to configure a power supply state (i.e. with the pause signal B1 received from the timing control circuit 2, the power supply circuit controller 44 causes the level shifter power supply 42c, the source driving circuit power supply 42d and the common electrode power supply 42e to stop supplying power) for an internal circuit (42c, 42d and 42e) of the display driver circuit in response to detecting that the display driver circuit enters the non-active state (pause mode), to save power consumption of the internal circuit, (fig. 4, [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi discloses wherein the detector (24 and 25) detects whether the display driver circuit (2 and 4) enters the non-active state (pause state) by detecting whether the display interface (102) transits from a first operation mode (display mode) to a second operation mode (pause mode), wherein the display interface (102) transits to the second operation mode (pause mode) in response to receiving an indicating packet (control signal D1) which indicates the second operation mode (i.e. signal used to transition from the display mode to the pause mode), (figs. 1 and 4, [0028]).
Regarding claim 1, please refer to claim 11 for details.
Regarding claim 2, please refer to claim 12 for details.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Yoon (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0415241).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi discloses everything as specified above in claim 11. However, Hayashi does not mention a preconfigured signal received by the display driver circuit transits from a first logic level to a second logic level.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yoon teaches wherein the detector (123-1 and 123-2) detects whether the display driver circuit (123) enters the non-active state (sleep mode) by detecting whether a preconfigured signal (V_D and V_T) received by the display driver circuit transits from a first logic level (i.e. voltage level of V_D) to a second logic level (i.e. voltage level of V_T), wherein the preconfigured signal with the first logic level is corresponding to an active state (i.e. display mode) of the display driver circuit and the preconfigured signal with the second logic level (i.e. voltage level of V_T) is corresponding to the non-active state (sleep mode) of the display driver circuit, (figs. 2 and 5, [0063 and 0100-0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashi, by specifically providing the different logic level of the signal, as taught by Yoon, for the purpose of driving the display in different modes.
Regarding claim 4, please refer to claim 14 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-10, 13 and 15-24 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 13, Chung et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0192544) discloses The counter 234 continuously counts the number Tc of situations in which the touch sensing data is smaller than the minimum touch sensing data MINt, and transfers the number Tc to the second comparator 236. If the continuous number Tc of situations in which the touch sensing data is smaller than the minimum touch sensing data MINt is equal to or greater than the first reference value Tmin, the second comparator 236 transfers the result to the sleep mode state processor 238, (fig. 7, [0105]).
However, none of the prior art of record teaches alone or in combination the limitation “wherein the detector detects whether the display driver circuit enters the non-active state by detecting whether a counter starts counting, wherein the counter is configured to count a period during which the display driver circuit stays in the non-active state, which is determined according to a frame rate switch command.”
Claim 15, none of the prior art of record teaches alone or in combination the limitation “wherein the detector outputs a power control signal with a second state to the power control circuit in response to detecting that the display driver circuit enters the non-active state, and the power control circuit configures the power supply state that is different than providing a first voltage according to the power control signal with the second state, wherein the first voltage is provided by the power control circuit to the internal circuit according to the power control signal with a first state when the display driver circuit stays in an active state.”
Claims 16-22 are dependent upon claim 15 and are allowed for the reason mentioned above in claim 15.
Claim 3 is allowed for similar reason as mentioned above in claim 13.
Claim 5 is allowed for similar reason as mentioned above in claim 15.
Claims 6-8 are dependent upon claim 5 and are allowed for the reason mentioned above in claim 5.
Claim 23, Chung discloses the counter 234 continuously counts the number Tc of situations in which the touch sensing data is smaller than the minimum touch sensing data MINt, and transfers the number Tc to the second comparator 236, (fig. 7, [0105]).
However, none of the prior art of record teaches alone or in combination the limitation “a first counter for counting a first period in response to detecting the display driver circuit enters the non-active state, wherein the first period is less than a period during which the display driver circuit stays in the non-active state, wherein in response to an expiration of the first counter, the power control circuit stops configuring the power supply state for the internal circuit and provides a first voltage to the internal circuit instead.”
Claim 24 is dependent upon claim 23 and is allowed for the reason mentioned above in claim 23.
Claim 9 is allowed for similar reason as mentioned above in claim 23.
Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 9 and is allowed for the reason mentioned above in claim 9.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG D PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Chanh D Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/LONG D PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights