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
The amendment filed on 9-19-25 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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, 10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredlund (US 2018/0227560) in view of Hatley et al. (US 2012/0176042).
Regarding claim 1, Fredlund (Fig. 2, 6, and 12) discloses a computer-implemented method (“method executed at least in part by a computer system” discussed in [0007]) for displaying spectral components (also called “spectral characteristics” in [0003]) of light to be, or being, emitted by one or more components of a display panel (40), the method comprising:
providing (in step S150), to a user display of a user device, one or more representations of the spectral components of light to be, or being, emitted by the one or more components of the display panel (seen in Fig. 6, “adjustment to each color channel R, G, B can be provided using on-screen controls 32” discussed in [0058]);
receiving (in step S160), from a user interface of the user device, one or more spectral parameter control values indicative of a variation of the spectral components of light to be, or being, emitted (“manual adjustment step S160, the system accepts an operator instruction for image adjustment” discussed in [0055]); and
providing (in step S170), to the user display, an updated representation of the spectral components of light to be, or being, emitted, wherein the updated representation of the spectral components of light is adjusted based on the one or more spectral parameter control values (“display step S170 can then display the operator-adjusted image” discussed in [0056]).
However, while Fredlund discloses wherein the one or more representations of the spectral components of light comprises a representation of a spectrum of light to be, or being, emitted (eg. a red, green, or blue spectrum light, represented by 32 in Fig. 6), Fredlund fails to teach or suggest “wherein the one or more representations of the spectral components of light comprises a representation of the total spectrum of light to be, or being, emitted.”
Hatley (Fig. 20-22) discloses a method for displaying representation of spectral components (using a “user control interface” 800B, seen in Fig. 20, for “methods for controlling the spectral content of an output of a light” as discussed in [0029]) of light to be, or being, emitted by light sources (“control the output of each of the light sources” discussed in [0034]),
wherein the one or more representations of the spectral components of light comprises a representation of the total spectrum of light to be, or being, emitted (eg. as seen in Fig. 20A, there are 7 “faders” 840A, 845A, 850A, etc., that together collectively represent the total spectrum of light of the display, see the similar seven spectrum in Fig. 4-10 that are combined for a “total output” as seen in Fig. 11, with “resultant total output of the light fixture when the spectral output data 200-230 for each of the light sources in the light fixture is combined” discussed in [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fredlund so the one or more representations of the spectral components of light comprises a representation of the total spectrum of light to be, or being, emitted as taught by Hatley because this allows for a “user's desired changes in the spectral content of the output of the light” (see [0007]).
Regarding claim 10, Fredlund and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, and Fredlund further discloses wherein the one or more representations of the spectral components of light to be, or being, emitted relate to a pixel or a group of pixels of received video data (the images are “video” as discussed in [0089]).
Regarding claim 13, Fredlund and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, and Fredlund further discloses providing a user interface element (32) as part of the user interface for a user to control the one or more spectral parameter control values (seen in Fig. 6, including “sliders” to control the values, also discussed in [0086]).
Regarding claim 14, Fredlund and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, and Fredlund further discloses wherein the one or more spectral parameter control values are received responsive to a user viewing the representations of the spectral components of light on the user display (as seen in Fig. 6, the user can view representations of the colors red, green, and blue, as part of the sliders below the modified image 26).
Regarding claim 15, Fredlund and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, and Fredlund further discloses the method comprising:
receiving, from the user interface responsive to a user viewing the updated representation of the spectrum of light to be, or being, emitted, one or more updated spectral parameter control values indicative of a further variation of the spectral components (eg. as shown in Fig. 6, the sliders will update based on the user input, with the white circle showing the current variation of the spectral components, and allowing the user to further adjust by sliding the controls).
Regarding claim 16, Fredlund and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, and Fredlund further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (eg. a “memory” as discussed in [0084]) comprising computer-readable code (“stores and executes programmed instructions” discussed in [0080]) arranged to implement the method discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, Fredlund and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, and Fredlund further discloses a system comprising one or more processors (70, see [0080]) arranged to perform the method discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, Fredlund and Hatley disclose a system as discussed above, and Fredlund further discloses wherein the system further comprises the user interface (eg. 32, shown on the display in Fig. 6) and the user display (40).
Claims 2-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredlund and Hatley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyazawa et al. (US 2020/0312255).
Regarding claim 2, Fredlund and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, and Fredlund further discloses wherein the display panel comprises a plurality of units (called “pixels” in [0062]), and including red, green, and blue colors (eg. “red, green, and blue values” discussed in [0034] or the “RGB (Red/Green/Blue) model” discussed in [0051]).
However, Fredlund and Hatley fail to teach or suggest further specific details about the display panel.
Miyazawa (Fig. 1, 2, and 6) discloses a method for displaying spectral components (“GUI parts for performing various operations for display on a display apparatus which is an apparatus of an output destination” including “color adjustment” discussed in [0199]) of light to be, or being, emitted by one or more components of a display panel (2),
wherein the display panel comprises a plurality of RGBF LED units (seen in Fig. 6), each RGBF LED unit comprising a Red LED (10R, with “Light Emitting Diodes” discussed in [0075]), a Green LED (10G), a Blue LED (10B) and a Fourth-colour LED (10W) that is not the same colour as the Red, Green or Blue LEDs (in this example, “white” as discussed in [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fredlund and Hatley so the display panel comprises a plurality of RGBF LED units, each RGBF LED unit comprising a Red LED, a Green LED, a Blue LED and a Fourth-colour LED that is not the same colour as the Red, Green or Blue LEDs as taught by Miyazawa because this makes it “possible to increase the maximum output luminance value Lmax in the case where only white display is performed” (see [0086]).
Regarding claim 3, Fredlund, Hatley, and Miyazawa disclose a method as discussed above, and the combination further discloses wherein the one or more representations of the spectral components of light comprises one or more of:
a representation of a spectral component provided by the Red LED (as seen in Fig. 6 of Fredlund, the sliders 32 include a control so a red component can be adjusted, while Miyazawa teaches the red light from the display comes from a red LED 10R);
a representation of a spectral component provided by the Green LED (as seen in Fig. 6 of Fredlund, the sliders 32 include a control so a green component can be adjusted, while Miyazawa teaches the green light from the display comes from a green LED 10G);
a representation of a spectral component provided by the Blue LED (as seen in Fig. 6 of Fredlund, the sliders 32 include a control so a blue component can be adjusted, while Miyazawa teaches the blue light from the display comes from a blue LED 10B); and
a representation of a spectral component provided by the Fourth-colour LED (this limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “one or more of”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fredlund, Hatley, and Miyazawa for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Fredlund, Hatley, and Miyazawa disclose a method as discussed above, and Hatley further discloses wherein the variation (“the user manually modifies one or more of the output intensity values for the light sources” as discussed in [0058]) is indicative of the effect of varying drive signals (“the light sources are driven or activated at the stored output intensity values” as discussed in [0060]) to one or more of the LEDs (“LED” discussed in [0044]) of the RGBF LED unit (“red, green, blue, and white ("RGBW") light sources” discussed in [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fredlund, Hatley, and Miyazawa for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Fredlund, Hatley, and Miyazawa disclose a method as discussed above, and Hatley further discloses wherein one of the one or more spectral parameter control values shifts a spectral balance between use of the Red, Green and Blue LEDs with respect to use of the Fourth-colour LED (eg. as seen in Fig. 20A, the green spectral control has increased with slider 855A, while a fourth color, eg. “red-orange” has remained the same, with slider 845A still at “0”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fredlund, Hatley, and Miyazawa for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, Fredlund, Hatley, and Miyazawa disclose a method as discussed above, and Hatley further discloses wherein one of the one or more spectral parameter control values varies one or more brightness levels of the LEDs (“user modifications correspond to an increase or decrease in an amount of one or more colors in the output of the light” discussed in [0058]) while substantially maintaining a colour and a brightness defined by received video data (“used to produce the same output color, but with different spectral content” discussed in [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fredlund, Miyazawa, and Hatley for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 7, Fredlund, Miyazawa, and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, and Hatley further discloses wherein the brightness of light emitted by the one or more components of a display panel is increased (“user is able to modify the output intensity value of a light source to increase or decrease the amount of a corresponding color that is present in the output” discussed in [0029], or more specifically, see Fig. 20A where the green color has the brightness increased with slider 855A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fredlund, Miyazawa, and Hatley for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, Fredlund, Miyazawa, and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, and Miyazawa further discloses wherein the fourth-colour LED is white (10W is “white” as discussed in [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fredlund, Miyazawa, and Hatley for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredlund, Miyazawa, and Hatley as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yano et al. (US 2012/0026210).
Regarding claim 8, Fredlund, Miyazawa, and Hatley disclose a method as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the one or more spectral parameter control values are indicative of one or more of:
(i) an instruction for one or more LED units of the plurality of LED units to prioritise use of the Fourth-colour LED over the Red, Green and Blue LEDs to substantially produce the colour and the brightness defined by received video data;
(ii) an instruction for the one or more LED units of the plurality of LED units to prioritise use of the Red, Green and Blue LEDs over the Fourth-colour LED to substantially produce the colour and the brightness defined by received video data; and
(iii) an instruction for the one or more LED units of the plurality of LED units to balance in a specific weighting the use of the Red, Green and Blue LEDs versus the Fourth-colour LED to substantially produce the colour and the brightness defined by received video data.
Yano (Fig. 8) discloses a method for adjusting spectral components (called “spectral characteristics” in [0046]) of light to be, or being, emitted by one or more components of a display panel (“display light emitted” from the panel discussed in [0009]),
wherein the one or more spectral parameter control values are indicative of (iii) an instruction for the one or more LED units of the plurality of LED units to balance in a specific weighting the use of the Red, Green and Blue LEDs versus the Fourth-colour LED (seen in Fig. 8C, each of the red, green, and blue color luminances is balanced with the white color luminance) to substantially produce the colour and the brightness defined by received video data (eg. “displaying a picture” discussed in [0003]).
The examiner notes that the limitations directed towards instructions (i) and (ii) are not being examined due to the alternative language “one or more of.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fredlund, Miyazawa, and Hatley to include wherein the one or more spectral parameter control values are indicative of an instruction for the one or more LED units of the plurality of LED units to balance in a specific weighting the use of the Red, Green and Blue LEDs versus the Fourth-colour LED as taught by Yano because this improves “luminance efficiency” (see [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, Fredlund discloses a method as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein the one or more representations of the spectral components of light to be, or being, emitted are spectral plots of the light.
Hatley (Fig. 4-11) discloses representations of the spectral components of light to be, or being, emitted are spectral plots of the light (eg. Fig. 4 is a spectral plot of “an output of a red light source with respect to wavelength” as discussed in [0015], Fig. 5 shows the same for red-orange light, etc.).
However, these plots are “stored in a memory of the light fixture as a table or multiple tables of values” and “accessed or retrieved to calculate an output of the light fixture without having to activate the light sources and use light sensors” (see [0040]), and are not “representations of the spectral components of light” which are provided “to a user display.”
Bryant (US 2013/0202203) discloses (Fig. 2) a method for adjusting spectral components (eg. using the R, G, and B sliders 245, 250, and 255 in Fig. 2) of light to be, or being, emitted by one or more components of a display panel (similar to “display area 370 is for displaying an image” discussed in [0059]),
wherein the one or more representations of the spectral components of light to be, or being, emitted are plots (“response graph 240” seen in Fig. 2, also discussed in [0053], see also “tonal adjustment graph” 380 in Fig. 3).
However, the plot of Bryant is not a “spectral” plot of the light, but instead “tonal values” (see [0053]).
Therefore, each of the currently cited references of record fails to teach or suggest “wherein the one or more representations of the spectral components of light to be, or being, emitted are spectral plots of the light” when combined with each of the other claim limitations.
Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 11 and would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In view of the amendments, the reference of Hatley (previously presented in the rejections of claims 4-7) have been added for new grounds of rejection.
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 JONATHAN M BLANCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 5712727772. 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.
/JONATHAN M BLANCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights