Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/206,219

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CALIBRATING DISPLAY SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 06, 2023
Examiner
SATTI, HUMAM M
Art Unit
2422
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Christie Digital Systems Usa Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
283 granted / 450 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
474
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
60.1%
+20.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 450 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 9-14, 20, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Ohwaki (Pub 20140168225). Regarding claim 1, A method of calibrating a display system, the method comprising: displaying a test pattern on a surface, (see displaying a test chart, Para. [0035]); capturing an image of the test pattern as displayed on the surface, (see image capturing module 24 fig 2 captures a display screen and a background image wherein the pattern is displayed on a screen Para. [0034-0035]) Identifying, from the image of the test pattern as displayed on the surface, patches of the displayed test pattern, wherein each patch comprises a subset of the displayed test pattern, (note in Para. [0034][0041]: “ in the embodiment, the image capturing module 24 captures the entire display screen G, but it is sufficient that the image capturing module 24 captures at least a portion of the display screen G so as to be able to specifying parameters of patches x1 to x12 arranged on the test chart T (see Fig . 5), as an example of the image having a parameter of a predetermined value) determining a patch location for at least one patch within the test pattern based on detected attributes of the patch, (Para. [0040]: see acquisition module 410 specifying a patch xn from among patches x1 to x12. Patch xn is determined as having a first value, construed as patch attribute, the same as a specified second value of brightness of background image G). determining a calibration parameter for the display system based on the patch location and at least one of the detected attributes of the patch and calibrating the display system using the calibration parameter, (see reading RGB values, construed as calibration parameter, from a conversion table based on patch information such as location and attribute Para. [0049]. The display is calibrated using the RGB values). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 2 and 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohwaki in view of Shroff (Pub 20170280135). Regarding claim 2, Ohwaki discloses claim 1. However, detecting one or more base features in the displayed test pattern. In a similar field of endeavor, Shroff discloses wherein identifying patches of the test pattern comprises: detecting one or more base features in the displayed test pattern, (determining white reference blocks Para. [0134]; and identifying the patches of the test pattern based on the one or more detected base features, (correcting adjacent patches based on adjacent white reference block, Para. [0134]). One of ordinary skill in the art would include the Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ohwaki by incorporating Shroff for the common purpose of calibrating a camera-projection system thereby allowing for optimal correction of displayed images. Regarding claim 3, Ohwaki discloses claim 1. However, detecting a white feature is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Shroff discloses wherein detecting the one or more base features comprises detecting a white feature in the displayed test pattern, (Para. [0134] white reference block). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ohwaki by incorporating Shroff for the common purpose of calibrating a camera-projection system thereby allowing for optimal correction of displayed images. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohwaki in view of Arai (Pub 20130307866). Regarding claim 4, Ohwaki discloses claim 1. However, determining set of colors, a patch address, and a patch location associated with the address are not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Arai discloses wherein determining the patch location comprises: determining a set of colors present in the patch, (N fig 14 for associating a color to a particular patch Para. [0115]); defining a patch address for the patch based on set of colors, (identification number of color patch fig 14 and Para. [0115]); and determining the patch location within the test pattern associated with the patch address, (table 14 provides patch addressing, which is also used to determine colors of different patches, i.e. provides relative address to adjacent patches Par. [0119-0123]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ohwaki by incorporating Arai for the common purpose of correcting displayed colors. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohwaki in view of Sukthankar (U.S. 6618076). Regarding claim 11, Ohwaki discloses a system comprising: a camera spaced away from and oriented towards the surface, the camera configured to capture an image of at least a portion of the test pattern as projected onto the surface, (see image capturing module 24 fig 2 captures a display screen and a background image wherein the a pattern is displayed on a screen Para. [0034-0035]); and a processor, (controller 27 fig 2) configured to: identify, using the captured image, a patch of the test pattern, wherein the patch comprises a subset of the test pattern, (note in Para. [0034][0041]: “ in the embodiment, the image capturing module 24 captures the entire display screen G, but it is sufficient that the image capturing module 24 captures at least a portion of the display screen G so as to be able to specifying parameters of patches x1 to x12 arranged on the test chart T (see Fig . 5), as an example of the image having a parameter of a predetermined value); determine a patch location for the patch within the test pattern based on detected attributes of the patch, (Para. [0040]: see acquisition module 410 specifying a patch xn from among patches x1 to x12. Patch xn is determined as having a first value, construed as patch attribute, the same as a specified second value of brightness of background image G).; determine a calibration parameter for the display system based on the patch location and one of the detected attributes of the patch; and calibrate the display system using the calibration parameter, (see reading RGB values, construed as calibration parameter, from a conversion table based on patch information such as location and attribute Para. [0049]. The display is calibrated using the RGB values). However, a display system configured to project a test pattern onto a surface is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Sukthankar discloses a display system configured to project a test pattern onto a surface, (see projecting a pattern 30 fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ohwaki by Sukthankar by substituting a projector for a display so that the same calibration outcome can be applied among different devices thereby improving a user’s experience. Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohwaki in view of Sukthankar in view of Cho (Pub 20130194292). Regarding claim 12, the combination discloses claim 1. However, wherein, to identify a patch of the test pattern, the processor is configured to: detect one or more base features in the test pattern; and identify the patches of the test pattern based on the one or more detected base features is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Cho discloses wherein, to identify a patch of the test pattern, the processor is configured to: detect one or more base features in the test pattern; and identify the patches of the test pattern based on the one or more detected base features, (see determining a color of each region, construed as base feature, Para. [0043] where each region may have a preset color associated with each region Para. [0035]. The regions of the color pattern are compared with projected color pattern which requires a region to be identified to be compared). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by including color information of each region so that correction is achieved per region thereby enhancing the displayed colors and improving a user’s experience. Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohwaki in view of Sukthankar in view of Shroff. Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses claim 12. Shroff further discloses wherein the one or more base features comprises a white feature in the test pattern, wherein detecting the one or more base features comprises detecting a white feature in the displayed test pattern, (Para. [0134] white reference block). One of ordinary skill in the art would have included the white features of Shroff in the color pattern of Cho for color correcting colors with respect to RGB and white colors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by incorporating Shroff for the common purpose of calibrating a camera-projection system thereby allowing correction of displayed images with respect to different colors. Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohwaki in view of Sukthankar in view of Arai. Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses claim 11. However, determining set of colors, a patch address, and a patch location associated with the address are not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Arai discloses wherein to determine the patch location, the processor is configured to: determine a set of colors present in the patch, (N fig 14 for associating a color to a particular patch Para. [0115]); define a patch address for the patch based on set of colors, (identification number of color patch fig 14 and Para. [0115]); and determine the patch location within the test pattern associated with the patch address, (table 14 provides patch addressing, which is also used to determine colors of different patches, i.e. provides relative address to adjacent patches Par. [0119-0123]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have included the features of Arai in Cho’s color correction using different regions so that different color regions can be corrected with respect to a region yielding best color. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by incorporating Arai for the common purpose of correcting displayed colors. Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohwaki in view of Sukthankar in view of Kitagawa (Pub 20180217479). Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses claim 11. However, obtaining a target attribute based on patch location and a calibration parameter based on a difference between the detected attribute and a target attribute is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Kitagawa discloses wherein to determine the calibration parameter, the processor is configured to: obtain a target attribute for the detected attribute of the patch based on the patch location; and define the calibration parameters based on a difference between the detected attribute and the target attribute, (Para. [0064]: see determining calibration parameter for sub pixels, i.e. patches A through P. A target attribute, i.e. A-P which indicates sub-pixel color position for each sub-pixel. Also note the difference where the sub-pixels are to be projected A-P versus A’-P’ Fig 5. The correction parameter is derived based on the amount of shift of those pixels, i.e. the different where the sub_pixels should have been projected vs the shifted version). One of ordinary skill in the art would have included obtaining the attribute and parameter as disclosed in Kitagawa in the combination thus far so that sub regions color correction can be performed for more in-depth color correction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination for the common purpose of making sub-pixel color correction. Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohwaki in view of Sukthankar in view of Oike (Pub 20210195152). Regarding claim 21, the combination discloses claim 11, however, a camera integrated with the display is not explicitly disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Oike discloses wherein the camera is integrated with the display system, (see either camera 15 integrated with display system 1 fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by incorporating display system comprising an integrated camera so that captured images are analyzed and processed and the results are readily available thereby improving the speed and convenience of the display system. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-8 and 15-19 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAM M SATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1709. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, John Miller can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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. HUMAM M. SATTI Examiner Art Unit 2422 /JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 06, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 06, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Oct 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598360
VIDEO CAPTIONING GENERATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589716
RAIN SENSOR SYSTEM, VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING RAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587619
METHOD OF ADJUSTING PROJECTION IMAGE, PROJECTION SYSTEM, AND CONTROL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12563287
Local generation of commands to a vehicle sensor
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563164
PROJECTION METHOD AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+17.5%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 450 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month