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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 § 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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala (Pub 20060126138) in view of Nagashima (JP 2015158626A).
Regarding claim 1, Bala discloses a method of calibrating a display system, the method comprising:
display a test pattern on a surface, the test pattern having a set of predefined attributes, (see generate a color target of known device values, where the target comprise ramps in gray, Para. [0023]. The test pattern has predefined attributes such as known input values, Para. [0038])
capturing an image of the test pattern as displayed on the surface, (capture projected target and take device-independent color measurements of the patches Para. [0024])
detecting attributes from the image of the test pattern as displayed on the surface, (note the known 50% luminance may be determined by correcting camera signals to match the patch’s luminance, see approximating the effect of displaying each patch at a single chosen reference location Para. [0039])
identifying patches of the displayed test pattern by matching the detected attributes with the predefined attributes, wherein each patch comprises a subset of the displayed test pattern, (note patches may be determined based on color such as 0 luminance, Para. [0040])
determining a calibration parameter for the display system based on the patch location and the at least one of the detected attributes of the patch, (note based on known luminance value such as 50%, projector tone response can be generated from all patches calibrated camera image signals which are converted to luminance values to generate tone response correction, Para. [0026][0045-0051])
and calibrating the display ssytem using the calibration parameter, (the projector may use tone response calibration 160, Para. [0042]).
However, determining a patch location for at least one patch within the test pattern based on the matching of the detected attributes of the patch with the predefined attributes of the test pattern is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nagashima discloses determining a patch location for at least one patch within the test pattern based on the matching of the detected attributes of the patch with the predefined attributes of the test pattern, (note patch feature acquisition unit 203 acquires brightness values relative to a target brightness value page 4: 8th paragraph – page 5 1st paragraph. Instead of brightness luminance/color values may also be used, construed as predetermined attributes: page 5 2nd paragraph. it is further disclosed in page 7: 2nd paragraph which luminance categories belong to which patch, construed as determining patch location. See patch determination unit 204). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bela by Nagashima for the benefit of generating accurate calibration data by considering which patches produces which luminance/color ranges and generating calibration data accordingly.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala in view of Nagashima in view of Shroff (Pub 20170280135).
Regarding claim 2, the combination 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 the combination by incorporating Shroff for the common purpose of calibrating a camera-projection system thereby allowing for optimal correction of displayed images.
Regarding claim 3, the combination 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 the combination 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 Bala in view of Nagashima in view of Arai (Pub 20130307866).
Regarding claim 4, the combination 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 the combination 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 Bala in view of Nagashima in view of Sukthankar (U.S. 6618076).
Regarding claim 11, Bela discloses a system comprising:
a display system configured to project a test pattern onto a surface, the test pattern having a set of predefined attributes, (see generate a color target of known device values, where the target comprise ramps in gray, Para. [0023]. The test pattern has predefined attributes such as known input values, Para. [0038])
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, (processor 150 Par. [0016]) configured to:
detect attributes from the image of the test pattern as displayed on the surface, (note the known 50% luminance may be determined by correcting camera signals to match the patch’s luminance, see approximating the effect of displaying each patch at a single chosen reference location Para. [0039])
identify a patch of the test pattern by matching the detected attributes with the predefined attribute, wherein the patch comprises a subset of the test pattern, (note patches may be determined based on color such as 0 luminance, Para. [0040]);
determine a calibration parameter for the display system based on the patch location and one of the detected attributes of the patch, (note based on known luminance value such as 50%, projector tone response can be generated from all patches calibrated camera image signals which are converted to luminance values to generate tone response correction, Para. [0026][0045-0051]);
and calibrate the display system using the calibration parameter, (the projector may use tone response calibration 160, Para. [0042]).
However, determining a patch location for the patch within the test pattern based on the matching of the detected attributes of the patch with the predefined attributes of the test pattern is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nagashima discloses determining a patch location for at least one patch within the test pattern based on the matching of the detected attributes of the patch with the predefined attributes of the test pattern, (note patch feature acquisition unit 203 acquires brightness values relative to a target brightness value page 4: 8th paragraph – page 5 1st paragraph. Instead of brightness luminance/color values may also be used, construed as predetermined attributes: page 5 2nd paragraph. it is further disclosed in page 7: 2nd paragraph which luminance categories belong to which patch, construed as determining patch location. See patch determination unit 204). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bela by Nagashima for the benefit of generating accurate calibration data by considering which patches produces which luminance/color ranges and generating calibration data accordingly.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala in view of Nagashima 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 Bala in view of Nagashima 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 Bala in view of Nagashima 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 Bala in view of Nagashima 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 Bala in view of Nagashima 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights