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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 09/15/2025 which has
been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 11-12 have been amended. No
claim has been newly added. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending in the application. Applicant’s
amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 9th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-12, filed on 09/15/2025, with respect to rejection under 35 USC § 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “applicant believes that the feature of the present application lies in determining the current display mode based on a user command for activating the OSD menu. Kwon's disclosure, however, shows that the operational sequence is the reverse. Kwon first determines the type of 3D image data (e.g., side-by-side or above-below) and then decides how to adjust the size of the OSD based on that type. Therefore, Kwon does not teach that the mode determination is triggered by the OSD command.” As recited in claim 1, these limitations are taught by Kwon. In particular, and in addition to the citations in claim 1 below, Kwon teaches mode determination is further triggered by command due to paragraph 121 teaching “control unit 160 grasps a user command based on the user's key manipulation signal, and controls the whole operation of the TV in accordance with the user command.”; although previous citations show user command in a specific embodiment, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that user command in other embodiments such as prior to determining display mode would also occur especially with support from paragraph 121. This would be due to user commands controlling the whole operation of the TV meaning the user command would lead to the input of data in fig. 3 at the start (such as request for activation of OSD menus in figs. 9-11 [since user controls whole operation]) and thus the display mode (matching the display data) is determined in accordance to that.
In response to applicant's argument that “The technical effect of the present application is that by binding the mode determination to the OSD activation command, the display is prevented from continuously checking the 3D mode, which would waste processor resources and power. The system only performs the determination when the OSD actually needs to be displayed, thus enhancing efficiency and accuracy.”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
MPEP 2145
IV. ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because “[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA].” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Applicant argues of Mori that it does not teach, “adjustments to the OSD image”, but the rejection clearly provides does this is not taught by Mori alone, the rejection instead pointing to Kwon. Showing that Mori, alone, does not teach the limitation does not address why the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki, as a whole would render the claimed invention obvious.
The Applicant proceeds to argue Baek separately by arguing that within Baek, the context is different and it only teaches OSD as a “default size” and not the “pre-shrinking and restoring it to its “original scale””, but again, Baek is not portrayed in the rejection as providing this full teaching, the rejection instead relying on the plurality of references to teach the feature, when applied to returning to an original scale after pre-shrinking.
In summary, the Applicant’s arguments provide for each reference what each reference alone does not teach of the claimed invention, but do not address why the combination of the teachings of all four references would not have been obvious as provided in the rejection, and they are therefore not persuasive
In response to applicant’s argument that “applicant has amended claim 1 by adding the words "subsequently," and "then" to explicitly define the sequential order of the three steps:” These arguments are moot because this contradicts applicant’s paragraph 33 in specification “Please refer to FIG. 5, which is a flowchart illustrating an image processing method for a 3D display according to an embodiment of the present invention. Please note that if a substantially same result can be achieved, the described steps need not be executed in the exact sequence provided in FIG 5.”, and also the end result arrived at from the combination of references is the same.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors exist as follows:
Claim 12: last instance of "a format conversion element" should be "the format conversion element".
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) 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0045780) in view of Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0096298), hereinafter referenced as Mori, Baek (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0139797), hereinafter referenced as Baek, and Aoki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0088334), hereinafter referenced as Aoki.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches an image processing method suitable for 3D display, comprising following steps (Kwon, paragraph 37 teaches a method of 3D image processing for 3D displays): determining, by a processor in a display-processing element, a current display mode of the 3D display according to a detected user command for activating on-screen display (OSD) menu (fig. 3 steps S310-S340 teaches inputting a 3D image and determining the 3D image data type, paragraph 122 teaches the mode being set according to input data, furthermore, paragraph 131 teaches a 3D TV judging whether the image data is of side-by-side type and paragraph 205 teaches the user activates the OSD menu with a command, in addition, paragraph 204 teaches a 3D image display mode for the specific data type and figs. 8D-8E of 3D data type correspond to applicant figs. 4B and 4E of 3D display mode for side-by-side and top-bottom display modes respectively); one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that display mode would depend on how image data is formatted; and also that a 3D tv has a processor and a display processing element (as shown in Kwon, fig. 6); in response to the current display mode being not a specific 3D display mode, the processor outputting the OSD menu at a position, and outputting an input image, wherein the preset position is a central position of the input image (fig. 3 steps S340 and S360 along with paragraph 136 teach a response to the image data not being in a 3D specific mode, paragraph 129 teaches figs. 3 and 10A-10G associated together in an embodiment, and paragraph 165 teaches the OSD menu being normally displayed in reference 1078 of fig. 10G which is treated as the input image being output); and in response to the current display mode being the specific 3D display mode, the processor outputting the OSD menu at an adjusted position, and outputting the input image, wherein the adjusted position is different from the preset position (fig. 3 steps S330 and S340 along with paragraph 131 and 143 teach checking if the image data is side-by-side or above-below type and then steps S335 and S345 teach adjusting the OSD menu size if true by generating the OSD through reduction of the size of the OSD in a vertical/horizontal direction and S350 by inserting the generated OSD into left and/or right eye image data); side-by-side or above-below type are specific 3D display modes and inserting the OSD menu at an reduced size and specific eye (adjusted) position ensures it is different from the preset position because it would be at a new position after adjustment; in addition, it is noted that paragraph 110 teaches to avoid an OSD menu from being displayed in a state that it is cut in half (which would be due to the preset or original position of an OSD), by performing the aforementioned steps to adjust position; wherein the OSD menu is of an original scale, and the step of the processor outputting the OSD menu at the adjusted position comprises: generating two adjacent sub-screens according to a main screen respectively (fig. 9A-9B and 10E-10F teach two adjacent sub-screens according to a main screen split according to a side-by-side 3D mode and a top-and-bottom 3D mode, in addition, figs. 11A-11B have L and R correspond to the two adjacent sub-screens); pre-shrinking and shifting the OSD menu to a corner of one sub- screen of the sub-screens, to generate an adjusted OSD menu (fig. 4 step s420 and s430 teach an adjusted OSD menu generated after shrinking and shifting it to a corner of a subscreen, in addition, reference 1130 of fig. 11A-11B depict this step); copying the adjusted OSD menu to a corresponding corner of the other sub-screen of the sub-screens, wherein the adjusted OSD menu does not cross a vertical midline and/or a horizontal midline that separates the main screen into the sub-screens (fig. 10C, reference 1032 and fig. 10F, reference 1062 teach OSD menus copied to corresponding subscreens where the OSD menus don't cross vertical midline and/or a horizontal midline, in addition, as shown in figs. 10A-10F and 11A-11B the OSD doesn’t cross vertical midline and/or a horizontal midline that separates the main screen into the sub-screens); integrating the sub-screens (fig. 10C shows integration of subscreens).
Kwon doesn't use the exact words "at a preset position".Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to understand that any OSD menu has a position in order to determine where on a display to color pixels corresponding to the OSD menu, and the position by definition must be preset prior to the pixel values being calculated. The motivation would have been to ensure a consistent and accurate display of the menu.
However, Kwon fails to explicitly teach wherein the preset position is a central position of the input image.
However, Mori teaches wherein the preset position is a central position of the input image (Mori, paragraph 5 teaches “superimposes the OSD image generated by the OSD generation circuit 903 on a predetermined position (center, for example) of an image (source image) of source image data received from an external apparatus though the communication I/F 101 and outputs the resulting image”). Mori is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of presetting OSD in a center position while image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwon's invention with the center OSD preset techniques of Mori to ensure main controller determines the OSD display position such that the defocus amount includes the minimum area (Mori, paragraph 125). This would provide depth accuracy and a stable region for the OSD area ensuring a better visual for a viewer.
However, the combination of Kwon and Mori fails to explicitly teach OSD menu is of an original scale; wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of the original scale.
However, Baek teaches OSD menu is of an original scale; wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of the original scale (Baek, paragraph 88 teaches “processor 140 may provide a UI image such as an OSD image as a default size irrespective of the adjusted screen image.”). Baek is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of providing an OSD at original/default scale in display control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination of Kwon and Mori with the OSD of default size techniques of Baek to in order to achieve an optimum viewing environment (Baek, paragraph 38). This would be done by having a originally/fully scaled OSD leading to a better view for the user without having to zoom in or out.
However, the combination of Kwon, Mori, and Baek fails to teach outputting the sub-screens to the format conversion element, and integrating the sub-screens by the format conversion element to generate an output image, wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of the original scale.
However, Aoki teaches and outputting the sub-screens to the format conversion element, (Aoki, paragraph 48 teaches a format converting unit receiving superimposed images); the sub-screens act as superimposed images since they have OSD menus on them; and integrating the sub-screens by the format conversion element to generate an output image, wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of the original scale (Aoki, fig. 8 shows the format converting unit 212 can output to displayed image processing unit 211). Aoki is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of using an image processing method for a display system with a format conversion element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kwon, Mori, and Baek to incorporate the teachings of Aoki so that higher encoding efficiency can be expected (Aoki, paragraph 28). This would ensure more overall efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki teaches wherein when the current display mode is a line-by-line 3D mode or a 2D mode, the processor determines that the current display mode is not the specific 3D mode (Kwon, fig. 8A an 8B teach a line-by-line mode and in fig. 3 if the 3D image data is not side-by-side S330 or above-below S340 type then the process ends without any additional steps); this means the processor is checking if a specific data type like side-by-side or above-below exists so it can determine whether the display mode is a specific 3D mode (side-by-side or above-below). The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki teaches wherein when the current display mode is the side-by-side 3D mode or the top-and- bottom 3D mode, the processor determines that the current display mode is the specific 3D mode (Kwon, fig. 3 steps S330 and S340 teach checking if the data type is specifically side-by-side or above-below and if true, then proceeding to a certain set of steps accordingly); this means the processor is checking if a specific data type like side-by-side or above-below exists so it can determine whether the display mode is a specific 3D mode (side-by-side or above-below) before proceeding with the next steps. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki teach wherein when the specific 3D mode is a side-by-side 3D mode or a top-and-bottom 3D mode, the step of the processor outputting the OSD menu at the adjusted position is performed (Kwon, figs. 10C and 10D along with paragraphs 138-139 teach “displaying an OSD through generation and insertion of a reduced OSD “ and a side-by-side and top-and-bottom mode for 3D in which OSD menu positioning is adjusted). The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki teach wherein when the specific 3D mode is the side-by-side 3D mode, the sub-screens are a left sub-screen and a right sub-screen respectively, and the step of pre-shrinking and shifting the OSD menu to a corner of one sub- screen of the sub-screens, to generate an adjusted OSD menu comprises: moving the OSD menu to the right or lower-right corner of the right sub-screen, and pre-shrinking a proportion of the right sub- screen in the horizontal direction to half of an original proportion (Kwon, fig. 10B teaches moving the OSD menu to the right of the sub-screen (in side-by-side mode), paragraph 174 teaches the OSD menu can be inserted specifically into a right corner, and paragraph 106 teaches size of OSD may be reduced by half in the horizontal direction). The OSD size reduction is in proportion to the image size of left/right eye image data (mentioned in Kwon, paragraph 137) meaning the sub-screen’s proportion must also be half. The reduction by half is pre-shrinking because it is done prior to the OSD menu being inserted into the right corner. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki teach wherein when the specific 3D mode is the top-bottom 3D mode, the sub-screens are an upper sub-screen and a lower sub-screen, respectively, and the step of shifting and pre-shrinking the OSD menu to generate the adjusted OSD menu in one of the sub-screens comprises: moving the OSD menu to a lower side or a lower-right corner of the lower sub-screen, and vertically pre-shrinking the right sub- screen to half of its original scale (Kwon, fig. 10E teaches moving the OSD menu to the lower portion of the sub-screen (in top-bottom mode), paragraph 174 teaches the OSD menu can be inserted specifically into a lower right corner, and paragraph 107 teaches size of OSD may be reduced by half in the vertical direction. The OSD size reduction is in proportion to the image size of left/right eye image data (mentioned in Kwon, paragraph 137) meaning the sub-screen’s proportion must also be half. The reduction by half is pre-shrinking because it is done prior to the OSD menu being inserted into the bottom corner. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 10
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kwonin, Mori, Baek and Aoki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshizawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0242986), hereinafter referenced as Yoshizawa.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki teaches wherein the step of the processor outputting the OSD menu at the adjusted position in response to the current display mode being the specific 3D mode, comprises: the processor outputting the OSD menu with the adjusted position and the input image to a format conversion element coupled to the display-processing element (Kwon, fig. 4 step s430 and paragraph 169 teaches the OSD menu is inserted at an adjusted position and paragraph 170 teaches outputting the input image); and the format conversion element superimposing the OSD menu with the adjusted position onto the input image as an output image (Kwon, paragraph 169 teaches the OSD menu is inserted at an adjusted position for the input image and paragraph 170 teaches outputting the input image). The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 6.
However, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki fails to teach the processor outputting the OSD menu with the adjusted position and the input image to a format conversion chip coupled to the display-processing element; and the format conversion element superimposing the OSD menu with the adjusted position onto the input image as an output image.
However Yoshizawa teaches the processor outputting the OSD menu with the adjusted position and the input image to a format conversion chip coupled to the display-processing element (Yoshizawa, paragraph 33 teaches a display processing unit that also performs format conversion and works for the display unit); the display processing unit is configured as a format conversion chip/element since it’s able to perform format conversion; and the format conversion element superimposing the OSD menu with the adjusted position onto the input image as an output image (Yoshizawa, paragraph 33 teaches the display processing unit/format conversion element superimposing an OSD menu). Yoshizawa is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of modification methods of display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki to incorporate the teachings of Yoshizawa for improved usability (Yoshizawa, paragraph 7). This would make the invention more widely applicable and versatile.
.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kwonin, Mori, Baek and Aoki as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of PENG (CN Patent Application Publication No. 103067680), hereinafter referenced as PENG.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki fails to teach wherein when a control command for switching the line-by-line 3D mode or the 2D mode to the specific 3D mode is received, the processor hides the OSD menu before the switching is completed.
However, PENG teaches wherein when a control command for switching the line-by-line 3D mode or the 2D mode to the specific 3D mode is received, the processor hides the OSD menu before the switching is completed (PENG, paragraph 6 teaches switching from a 2D to 3D mode, PENG paragraph 8 confirms the 3D mode would be the specific 3D mode because it's either side-by-side or top-bottom format, PENG paragraphs 26-27 teaches moving OSD menu into a cache before it is moved into physical memory); switching is usually a result of a command and being in cache memory means something is essentially hidden. PENG is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of switching between 2D and 3D in a smooth way while keeping OSD menu displayable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki incorporate the teachings of PENG so menu content of the OSD layer can also be displayed correctly (PENG, paragraph 60).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mano et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170186407), hereinafter referenced as Mano.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki teaches the processor transmitting the superimposed image to a format conversion element coupled to the display-processing element (Aoki, paragraph 48 teaches a format converting unit receiving a superimposed image from a processor). The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 7.
However, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki fails to teach wherein in response to the current display mode being the specific 3D mode, the step of the processor outputting the OSD menu at the adjusted position comprises: the processor superimposing the OSD menu with the adjusted position on the input image as a superimposed image; and the format conversion element using the superimposed image as an output image.
However, Mano teaches wherein in response to the current display mode being the specific 3D mode, the step of the processor outputting the OSD menu at the adjusted position comprises: the processor superimposing the OSD menu with the adjusted position on the input image as a superimposed image (Mano, paragraph 33 teaches a processor superimposing an OSD at an adjusted position and paragraph 64 teaches using a main/input image and OSD to be superimposed creating a composite/superimposed image); and the format conversion element using the superimposed image as an output image (Mano, paragraph 82 teaches display device displaying the composite/superimposed image). Displaying would be considered a form of outputting and in order for the image to be displayed, the format conversion element must first output it. Mano is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of modifying a display by performing operations to adjust positions and superimpose images using an OSD. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki to incorporate the teachings of Mano to ensure display area is used effectively (Mano, paragraph 42).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshizawa.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki teaches wherein the OSD menu has an original scale, and when the specific 3D mode is a side-by-side 3D mode or a top-and-bottom 3D mode, the step of the processor outputting the OSD menu at the adjusted position comprises: respectively generating adjacent sub-screens according to a main screen (Kwon, fig. 9A and 9B teach two adjacent sub-screens according to a main screen split according to a side-by-side 3D mode and a top-and-bottom 3D mode); and outputting the sub-screens to the format conversion element, and integrating the sub-screen by the format conversion element to generate an output image, wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of an original scale, (Kwon, fig. 10C also teaches integrating sub-screens and Aoki, fig. 8 shows the format converting unit 212 can output to displayed image processing unit 211 and paragraph 48 teaches a format converting unit receiving superimposed images [the subscreens act as superimposed images since they have OSD menus on them] and Baek paragraph 88 teaches the default/original scale/size OSD); and the adjusted position does not cross a vertical midline and/or a horizontal midline that separates the main screen into the sub-screens (Kwon, fig. 10C, reference 1032 and fig. 10F, reference 1062 teach OSD menus copied to corresponding sub-screens where the OSD menus don't cross vertical midline and/or a horizontal midline).
However, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Baek and Aoki fails to teach and the format conversion element captures the image of the OSD menu located at the preset position as the image of the adjusted position on the output image.
However, Yoshizawa teaches and the format conversion element captures the image of the OSD menu located at the preset position as the image of the adjusted position on the output image (Yoshizawa, paragraph 33 teaches display processing/format conversion unit superimposing an OSD menu). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that after the display is processed it typically leads to output; OSD menu in the normal position can be viewed as the adjusted position as well if the outputting occurs without actual adjustment. The same motivations used in claim 6 apply here in claim 11.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Mori, Aoki, Baek, YOO (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0063422) and Yoshizawa.
Regarding claim 12, Kwon teaches a 3D display comprising: a display-processing element comprising a processor, (paragraph 47 and fig. 6 teach a 3D tv inclusive of a display-processing element and a processor); video processing unit can act as both a display-processing element and processor; wherein the processor determines a current display mode of the 3D display according to a detected control command for activating an on- screen display (OSD) menu (paragraph 122 teaches the mode being set according to input data, paragraph 131 teaches 3D TV judging whether the image data is of side-by-side type and paragraph 205 teaches the user activates the OSD menu with a command); one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that display mode would depend on how image data is formatted; and also that a 3D tv has a processor and a display processing element as shown in Kwon, fig. 6, in addition, paragraph 204 teaches a 3D image display mode for the specific data type and figs. 8D-8E of 3D data type correspond to applicant figs. 4B and 4E of 3D display mode for side-by-side and top-bottom display modes respectively; wherein in response to the current display mode being not a specific 3D mode, the processor outputs the OSD menu at a preset position, which is a central position of the input image (fig. 3 steps S340 and S360 along with paragraph 136 teach a response to the image data not being in a 3D specific mode, paragraph 129 teaches figs. 3 and 10A-10G associated together in an embodiment, and paragraph 165 teaches the OSD menu being normally displayed in reference 1078 of fig. 10G which is treated as the input image being output); one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that any OSD menu has a position in order to determine where on a display to color pixels corresponding to the OSD menu, and the position by definition must be preset prior to the pixel values being calculated; and in response to the current display mode being the specific 3D mode, the processor outputs an adjusted OSD menu at an adjusted position different from the preset position (fig. 3 steps S330 and S340 along with paragraph 131 and 143 teach checking if the image data is side-by-side or above-below type and then steps S335 and S345 teach adjusting the OSD menu size if true by generating the OSD through reduction of the size of the OSD in a vertical/horizontal direction and S350 by inserting the generated OSD into left and/or right eye image data); side-by-side or above-below type are specific 3D display modes and inserting the OSD menu at an reduced size and specific eye (adjusted) position ensures it is different from the preset position because it would be at a new position after adjustment; in addition, it is noted that paragraph 110 teaches to avoid an OSD menu from being displayed in a state that it is cut in half (which would be due to the preset or original position of an OSD), by performing the aforementioned steps to adjust position; wherein the adjusted OSD menu does not cross a vertical midline and/or a horizontal midline that separates a main screen into two adjacent sub-screens (figs. 10A-10F and 11A-11B teach where the OSD menus don't cross vertical midline and/or a horizontal midline, in addition, as shown in the figs. aforementioned, OSD doesn’t cross vertical midline and/or a horizontal midline that separates the main screen into the sub-screens, in addition, figs. 11A-11B have L and R correspond to the two adjacent sub-screens); wherein the adjusted OSD menu is generated by pre-shrinking and shifting the OSD menu to a corner of one sub-screen of the sub-screens(fig. 4 step s420 and s430 teach an adjusted OSD menu generated after shrinking and shifting it to a corner of a subscreen, in addition, reference 1130 of fig. 11A-11B depict this step); and then copying the adjusted OSD menu to a corresponding corner of the other sub-screen of the sub-screens (fig. 10C, reference 1032 and fig. 10F, reference 1062 teach OSD menus copied to corresponding subscreens); and the sub-screens are integrated (Kwon, fig. 10C shows integration of subscreens).
However, Kwon fails to teach preset position (explicitly), which is a central position of the input image; a format conversion element coupled to the display-processing element, the format conversion element arranged to receive an input image and the OSD menu from the display-processing element to generate an output image; and a display panel coupled to the format conversion element, the display panel arranged to receive and display the output image from the format conversion element; and wherein the sub-screens are outputted to a format conversion element, and the sub-screens are integrated by the format conversion element to generate an output image, wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of an original scale.
However, Mori teaches preset position, which is a central position of the input image
(Mori, paragraph 5 teaches “superimposes the OSD image generated by the OSD generation circuit 903 on a predetermined position (center, for example) of an image (source image) of source image data received from an external apparatus though the communication I/F 101 and outputs the resulting image”). Mori is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of presetting OSD in a center position while image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwon's invention with the center OSD preset techniques of Mori to ensure main controller determines the OSD display position such that the defocus amount includes the minimum area (Mori, paragraph 125). This would provide depth accuracy and a stable region for the OSD area ensuring a better visual for a viewer.
However, the combination of Kwon and Mori fails to teach a format conversion element coupled to the display-processing element, the format conversion element arranged to receive an input image and the OSD menu from the display-processing element to generate an output image; and a display panel coupled to the format conversion element, the display panel arranged to receive and display the output image from the format conversion element; and wherein the sub-screens are outputted to a format conversion element, and the sub-screens are integrated by the format conversion element to generate an output image, wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of an original scale.
However, Aoki teaches wherein the sub-screens are outputted to a format conversion element, and the sub-screens are integrated by the format conversion element to generate an output image, wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of an original scale.
(Aoki, paragraph 48 teaches a format converting unit receiving superimposed images and Aoki, fig. 8 shows the format converting unit 212 can output to displayed image processing unit 211). Aoki is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of using an image processing method for a display system with a format conversion element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kwon and Mori to incorporate the teachings of Aoki so that higher encoding efficiency can be expected (Aoki, paragraph 28). This would ensure more overall efficiency.
However, the combination of Kwon, Mori and Aoki fails to explicitly teach format conversion element coupled to the display-processing element, the format conversion element arranged to receive an input image and the OSD menu from the display-processing element to generate an output image; and a display panel coupled to the format conversion element, the display panel arranged to receive and display the output image from the format conversion element; wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of an original scale (explicitly).
However, Baek teaches wherein the OSD menu on the output image is of an original scale (Baek, paragraph 88 teaches “processor 140 may provide a UI image such as an OSD image as a default size irrespective of the adjusted screen image.”). Baek is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of providing an OSD at original/default scale in display control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination of Kwon, Mori and Aoki with the OSD of default size techniques of Baek to in order to achieve an optimum viewing environment (Baek, paragraph 38). This would be done by having a originally/fully scaled OSD leading to a better view for the user without having to zoom in or out.
However, YOO teaches and a display panel coupled to the format conversion element, the display panel arranged to receive and display the output image from the format conversion element (YOO, paragraph 77 teaches the display panel displaying a final image); the final image would be the image after it has passed through the display processing/format conversion unit. YOO is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of processing systems and methods checking a display mode and overlaying an image with an OSD menu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kwon, Mori, Aoki, and Baek to incorporate the teachings of YOO to improve quality of an OSD image (YOO, paragraph 10).
However, the combination of Kwon, Mori, Aoki, Baek and YOO fails to teach a format conversion element coupled to the display-processing element, the format conversion element arranged to receive an input image and the OSD menu from the display-processing element to generate an output image; and a display panel coupled to the format conversion element, the display panel arranged to receive and display the output image from the format conversion element;
However, Yoshizawa teaches a format conversion element coupled to the display-processing element, (Yoshizawa, paragraph 33 teaches a display processing unit that also performs format conversion and works for the display unit); the display processing unit is configured as a format conversion chip/element; the format conversion element arranged to receive an input image and the OSD menu from the display-processing element to generate an output image (Yoshizawa, paragraph 33 teaches the display processing unit can also process images and OSD menus); the OSD menu would be from the display processing element because the display processing unit works with the display unit and to process images you must take an input image and generate an output image; and a display panel coupled to the format conversion element, the display panel arranged to receive and display the output image from the format conversion element (Yoshizawa, paragraph 33 teach the display processing unit/format conversion element working with the display device that can be a liquid crystal panel). Yoshizawa is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of modification methods of display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kwon, Mori, Aoki, Baek and YOO to incorporate the teachings of Yoshizawa for improved usability (Yoshizawa, paragraph 7). This would make the invention more widely applicable and versatile.
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 NAUMAN U AHMAD whose telephone number is (703)756-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/N.U.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611