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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If Applicant fails to provide a sufficiently descriptive title, Examiner will do so upon allowance of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claims 18-20 are directed to “A computer program product, wherein the program product is stored in a storage medium”. However, Applicant’s specification fails to explicitly exclude transitory signal embodiments for the claimed computer program storage medium (see instant specification, ¶ 222-223). Thus, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 18-20 cover ineligible transitory signal embodiments and are therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “a non-transitory readable storage medium”.
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 4, 5, and 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.
Claims 4 and 15 recite “communicating an input port”. Similarly, claim 5 recites “communicating an output port”. It is unclear what is meant by these limitations, as it is unclear how a physical input or output port can be communicated to another part of a circuit. In other words, this appears to be a grammatical error due to translation and the meaning of the limitations cannot be determined. The scope of the subject matter cannot be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus claims 4, 5, and 15 are indefinite.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 113015007, published 6/22/21, *note: Examiner will rely upon US 2023/0362328 as an English translation of CN 113015007) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 114302092, published 4/8/22, *note: Examiner will rely upon US 2024/0345790 as an English translation of CN 114302092) and Lee et al. (US 2025/0046269).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a data processing method, applied to a chip, wherein the method comprises: receiving a first enabling instruction sent by a system on chip (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 111-112, ¶ 131-140, determining module determines resolution is greater than preset resolution; see also ¶ 160-164, system on chip disclosed);
reducing a resolution of obtained first data according to the first enabling instruction, and processing the first data with a reduced resolution, to obtain second data (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, if resolution of a first video is greater than preset resolution, processing module processes video to obtain second video with lower resolution, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 111-112, ¶ 131-140);
wherein the first data is image data sent by the system on chip, the resolution of the first data is greater than or equal to a first threshold, and a resolution of the second data is less than the first threshold (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, if resolution of a first video is greater than preset resolution, processing module processes video to obtain second video with lower resolution, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 111-112, ¶ 131-140).
Li fails to explicitly disclose a discrete display chip, and sending the second data to a display driver integrated circuit.
Zhang teaches a discrete display chip (figs. 1-4, ¶ 28-34, independent display chip disclosed for image processing including frame interpolation, super resolution, etc.).
Li and Zhang are both directed image processing for display devices. 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 Li with the independent display chip of Zhang since such a modification reduces power consumption of the system on chip and improves the fluency of the image displayed (Zhang, ¶ 28).
Lee teaches sending the second data to a display driver integrated circuit (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 9, ¶ 42, ¶ 78-86, display driver IC comprises an upscaler to increase resolution of image data).
Li in view of Zhang and Lee are both directed image processing for display devices. 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 Li in view of Zhang with the display driver IC of Lee since such a modification enables efficient image processing and reduced power consumption (Lee, ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses wherein reducing the resolution of the obtained first data comprises: downscaling the first data by enabling a downscale component in the discrete display chip (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, if resolution of a first video is greater than preset resolution, processing module processes video to obtain second video with lower resolution, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 111-112, ¶ 131-140).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further teaches wherein at least one of the following processing is performed on the first data with the reduced resolution: frame interpolation; super-resolution; denoising; color enhancement; or color calibration (figs. 1-4, ¶ 28-34, independent display chip disclosed for image processing including frame interpolation, super resolution, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further teaches wherein the method further comprises: communicating an input port of the discrete display chip with a display data receiving component of the discrete display chip after receiving the first enabling instruction, wherein the display data receiving component is connected to the downscale component (figs. 1-4, ¶ 28-34, independent display chip communicates with system on chip);
and sending a first transmission instruction to the system on chip, wherein the first transmission instruction notifies the system on chip to send the first data (figs. 1-4, ¶ 28-34, system on chip sends data to the independent display chip when TE signal sent by independent display chip is received).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses receiving a first disabling instruction sent by the system on chip after receiving the first enabling instruction (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, if resolution of a first video is less than or equal to the preset resolution, e.g., prior art algorithm utilized, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 111-112, ¶ 131-140).
Zhang further teaches directly communicating an output port of the discrete display chip with an input port of the discrete display chip according to the first disabling instruction, wherein the input port of the discrete display chip is connected to an output port of the system on chip, and the output port of the discrete display chip is connected to an input port of the display driver integrated circuit (figs. 1-4, ¶ 28-34, input and output ports of independent display chip directly connected; independent display chip connected between system on chip and display device LCM).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses a data processing method, applied to a circuit, wherein the method comprises: receiving a second enabling instruction sent by a system on chip (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 111-112, ¶ 131-140, determining module determines resolution is greater than preset resolution; see also ¶ 160-164, system on chip disclosed);
and increasing, according to the second enabling instruction, a resolution of the second data, to obtain third data, wherein a resolution of the third data is equal to a resolution of first data, and the first data is image data sent by the system on chip (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, frame-inserted low-resolution video restored to frame-inserted high-resolution video according to the target rule, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 111-112, ¶ 131-140).
Li fails to explicitly disclose a display driver integrated circuit, and a case of obtaining second data sent by a discrete display chip.
Zhang teaches a case of obtaining second data sent by a discrete display chip (figs. 1-4, ¶ 28-34, independent display chip disclosed for image processing including frame interpolation, super resolution, etc.).
Li and Zhang are both directed image processing for display devices. 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 Li with the independent display chip of Zhang since such a modification reduces power consumption of the system on chip and improves the fluency of the image displayed (Zhang, ¶ 28).
Lee teaches a display driver integrated circuit (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 9, ¶ 42, ¶ 78-86, display driver IC comprises an upscaler to increase resolution of image data).
Li in view of Zhang and Lee are both directed image processing for display devices. 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 Li in view of Zhang with the display driver IC of Lee since such a modification enables efficient image processing and reduced power consumption (Lee, ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further teaches wherein increasing the resolution of the second data comprises: upscaling the second data by enabling an upscale component in the display driver integrated circuit (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 9, ¶ 42, ¶ 78-86, display driver IC comprises an upscaler to increase resolution of image data).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses wherein the method further comprises: receiving a second disabling instruction sent by the system on chip after receiving the second enabling instruction (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, if resolution of a first video is less than or equal to the preset resolution, e.g., prior art algorithm utilized, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 111-112, ¶ 131-140);
disabling the upscale component according to the second disabling instruction (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, if resolution of a first video is less than or equal to the preset resolution, e.g., prior art algorithm utilized, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 111-112, ¶ 131-140).
Zhang further teaches sending a second transmission instruction, wherein the second transmission instruction notifies the system on chip to send the first data (figs. 1-4, ¶ 28-34, system on chip sends data to the independent display chip when TE signal sent by independent display chip is received);
and receiving the first data transmitted by the discrete display chip (figs. 1-4, ¶ 28-34, independent display chip disclosed for image processing including frame interpolation, super resolution, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses a non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the readable storage medium has a program or instructions stored therein, and the program or the instructions are executed by a processor to implement the steps of the data processing method according to claim 1 (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 160-164).
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, Li discloses a computer program product, wherein the program product is stored in a storage medium, and the program product is executed by at least one processor to implement the steps of the data processing method according to claim 1 (fig. 1, ¶ 27-32, see also figs. 10-12, ¶ 160-164).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See attached Notice of References Cited.
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