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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 of the claim recite “wherein evaluating the mura degree of the virtual image based on the mura type, further comprising” which should read “wherein evaluating the mura degree of the virtual image based on the mura type further comprises” for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an image generator configured to render a virtual image” and
“a positioner coupled with the image generator and the imager, and configured to control a relative position of the near-eye display and the imager”
in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richards (U.S. Patent 9,905,168).
As to claim 1, Richards discloses a method for detecting a mura of a virtual image in a near-eye display, comprising:
acquiring the virtual image rendered in the near-eye display (fig. 1; col. 10, lines 32-53; a virtual reality image is rendered in an HMD, which is a near-eye display; it is acquired by a colorimeter, which measures color values at a number of points in the display);
extracting a mura feature of the virtual image according to a mura type (col. 10, line 54-col. 11, line 39; non-uniformity features, reading on mura, are extracted based on measurements for various types of mura, such as brightness non-uniformities, color non-uniformities, high-frequency non-uniformities, and low-frequency non-uniformities);
and evaluating a mura degree of the virtual image based on the mura type (col. 10, line 54-col. 11, line 39; different degrees of non-uniformity/mura are associated with different correction factors for each of the types of non-uniformity; and the difference measurements for type of non-uniformity, such as brightness non-uniformity and color non-uniformity, are used to determine the correction factors).
As to claim 2, Richards discloses wherein the mura type comprises a corner mura, a cloud mura, or a global mura (col. 11, lines 26-39; col. 12, lines 7-36; type can include low frequency across an entire display, which would read on global mura, or high-frequency in a specific area which would read on cloud mura).
As to claim 4, Richards discloses wherein extracting the mura feature of the virtual image according to the mura type, comprises: extracting, when the mura type is the cloud mura, the mura feature based on a spatial gradient profile or frequency domain (col. 11, lines 26-39; non-uniformity/mura type is evaluated using frequency; non-uniformity in a specific area, which would read on cloud mura, is evaluated using high-frequency calibration data).
As to claim 5, Richards discloses wherein extracting the mura feature of the virtual image according to the mura type, comprises: extracting, when the mura type is the global mura, the mura feature based on a global profile (col. 11, lines 26-39; col. 12, lines 24-36; if the mura/non-uniformity is global across the entire display panel, it is determined/extracted based on a low-frequency calibration and a profile of what users will tolerate in global/entire panel non-uniformity).
As to claim 8, Richards discloses wherein evaluating the mura degree of the virtual image based on the mura type, further comprises determining one or more primary mura types of the virtual image; and evaluating the mura degree of the virtual image based on one or more preset thresholds corresponding to the one or more primary mura types (col. 11, lines 26-39; col. 12, lines 7-36; depending on a frequency type of the non-uniformities/mura that is identified as part of the image, which would read on a “primary” mura type, different thresholds are used to evaluate correction of the non-uniformities/mura).
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 3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Wang (CN 106782251 A, herein represented by a translation).
As to claim 3, Richards does not disclose, but Wang discloses wherein extracting the mura feature of the virtual image according to the mura type, comprises: extracting, when the mura type is the corner mura, the mura feature based on a luminance threshold profile (p. 5; p. 7; to evaluate corner mura, the luminance is compared to a threshold to determine if it is greater in scale). The motivation for extracting mura and then evaluating based on luminance is that dividing into areas and then evaluating is a fast, simple method of image processing to detect screen quality (p. 6). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards to extract, when the mura type is the corner mura, the mura feature based on a luminance threshold profile in order to use a fast, simple method of image processing to detect screen quality as taught by Wang.
As to claim 9, Richards does not disclose, but Wang discloses wherein the corner mura is determined as the primary mura type (p. 5-6; corner mura is determined as the primary defect class/area based on comparisons between areas in the display). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 10, Wang discloses wherein the one or more preset thresholds comprises: a luminance scale threshold corresponding to the corner mura, or an area size threshold corresponding to the cloud mura (p. 5; p. 7; to evaluate corner mura, the luminance is compared to a threshold to determine if it is greater in scale). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 11, Wang discloses wherein the preset threshold is .132 or 13.2% (p. 5), rather than the claimed luminance scale threshold of 30%, and Richards discloses wherein the preset threshold of the area size threshold appears to be between 5% and 10% (fig. 5a) rather than the claimed threshold of 30%. However, applicant’s disclosure does not show any criticality for the 30%, instead giving this an example at section 0052 of the specification while also stating that 1% differences are insignificant while 8% differences are more serious than 5% differences. Given the lack of criticality of the 30% threshold in applicant’s disclosure, one skilled in the art would expect smaller, but still greater than or equal to the 5% example given in applicant’s disclosure, to work just as well, rendering the threshold values in Wang and Richards as obvious variations of the claimed threshold value. See MPEP 2144.05, which states, regarding similar proportions, that a reference teaching proportions of 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical. Similar to the 0.3 difference in the case discussed in MPEP 2144.05, Wang and Richards show differences of 0.17-0.25 to the claimed invention but can still be considered obvious variations of the claimed invention because of the lack of criticality for the “30%” threshold in applicant’s disclosure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Hong (U.S. Publication 2021/0366392).
As to claim 6, Richards discloses extracting mura feature according to the mura type as discussed in the rejection to claim 1. Richards does not disclose, but Hong discloses before extracting the mura feature of the virtual image, the method further comprises: translating the virtual image into a pseudo-color image, wherein the pseudo-color image presents an absolute luminance distribution or a relative luminance distribution (fig. 4; p. 2, section 0015; p. 4, section 0063-0065; p. 6, sections 0088-0092; before extracting/correcting for a mura issue, the image is translated to a luminance distribution which can be an overall/absolute luminance profile/distribution or one scaled by block currents, which would be relative). The motivation for this is to properly compensate driving voltage based on actual display values (p. 1, sections 0004-0006). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards to translate the virtual image into a pseudo-color image, wherein the pseudo-color image presents an absolute luminance distribution or a relative luminance distribution before mura feature extraction in order to properly compensate driving voltage based on actual display values as taught by Hong.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Buckley (U.S. Publication 2023/0236429).
As to claim 7, Richards discloses extracting mura features of the virtual image based on the mura type as discussed in the rejection to claim 1. Richards does not disclose, but Buckley discloses wherein before extracting mura features of the virtual image, the method further comprises: plotting the virtual image as a 3D surface to obtain a 3D image (p. 1-2, section 0005; the VR/virtual image is plotted as a surface with X, Y, Z coordinates at different eye relief distances before extracting information about display non-uniformities/mura). The motivation for this is to compensate for a user’s custom eye position. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards to plot the virtual image as a 3D surface to obtain a 3D image before mura extraction in order to compensate for a user’s custom eye position as taught by Buckley.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Stan (U.S. Publication 2021/0210007).
As to claim 12, Richards does not disclose, but Stan discloses wherein acquiring the virtual image rendered in the near-eye display (p. 3, section 0023; p. 6, sections 0056-0059; a virtual image test pattern is rendered and acquired by a measurement device such as a camera; the display is a virtual-reality head-mounted display, which reads on a near-eye display), further comprise acquiring the virtual image under a solid test pattern or multiple partial test patterns, wherein the partial test patterns are with various gray values and colors (p. 6, section 0056; p. 8, section 0082; various patterns including setting each of a particular sub-pixel in an image to particular values, such as 16, 32, etc. are used to reduce mura; the patterns are solid colors since each a particular sub-pixel is set to an equal value; they are also partial test patterns since they are only single components at once- R pixels are separate from G, etc.). The motivation for this is to calculate de-mura offsets for each pixel or sub-pixel (p. 6, section 0061). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards to acquire the virtual image under a solid test pattern or multiple partial test patterns, wherein the partial test patterns are with various gray values and colors in order to calculate de-mura offsets for each pixel or sub-pixel as taught by Stan.
As to claim 15, Stan discloses wherein the virtual image is rendered under an ambient light condition (p. 9, section 0087; the virtual image is rendered at a particular ambient light level, and compensation is changed based on whether than level meets a threshold). Motivation for the combination of references is given in the rejection to claim 12.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Stan and further in view of Chung (U.S. Publication 2007/0091041).
As to claims 13 and 14, Stan discloses test patterns as noted in the rejection to claim 12. Stan does not disclose, but Chung discloses wherein the test pattern is a full white test pattern or a full gray test pattern (p. 1-2, section 0021; the test pattern can be white, black, or any shade of gray in between on a 0-255 scale). The motivation for this is to set different compensations for different locations and input values (p. 2, section 0022-0023). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards and Stan to use test patterns of full white test pattern and full gray in order to set different compensations for different locations and input values as taught by Chung.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Moertelmaier (U.S. Publication 2019/0362481).
As to claim 16, Richards does not disclose, but Moertelmaier discloses wherein before extracting the mura feature of the virtual image according to the mura type, the method further comprises: preprocessing the virtual image by eliminating one or more of a noise or a distortion (p. 3, section 0032-p. 4, section 0037; before local mura defects are calculated according to patterns/types, artifacts and noise are removed from the combined image, which can read on a virtual image since it is a combined image rather than a single real image that corresponds to a camera output). The motivation for this is to enhance the quality of the evaluated image. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards to preprocess the virtual image by eliminating one or more of a noise or a distortion before extracting the mura feature of the virtual image according to the mura type in order to enhance the quality of the evaluated image as taught by Moertelmaier.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Jia (U.S. Publication 2023/0059052).
As to claim 17, Richards discloses a system for detecting a mura in a virtual image rendered in a near-eye display, comprising:
an image generator configured to render a virtual image; an imager configured to acquire the virtual image (fig. 1; col. 10, lines 32-53; a virtual reality image is rendered in an HMD, which is a near-eye display; it is acquired by a colorimeter, which measures color values at a number of points in the display);
and a processor coupled with the imager and configured to evaluate a mura degree of the virtual image (col. 7, lines 25-33; col. 10, line 54-col. 11, line 39; different degrees of non-uniformity/mura are determined and associated with different correction factors for each of the types of non-uniformity).
Richards does not disclose, but Jia discloses a positioner coupled with the image generator and the imager, and configured to control a relative position of the near-eye display and the imager (fig. 1; p. 1, section 0015-p. 2, section 0022; p. 3, section 0034; p. 4, section 0037; an orientation controller acts as a positioner to change the position of the eye system, which includes a camera that acts as an imager, relative to the HMD/near-eye display being imaged). The motivation for this is that a static camera is insufficient to confirm responsiveness of a display. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards to include a positioner coupled with the image generator and the imager, and configured to control a relative position of the near-eye display and the imager in order to confirm responsiveness of a display as taught by Jia.
As to claim 18, see the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 19, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 20, Richards does not disclose, but Jia discloses wherein the imager comprises: a near-eye display lens configured to emulate a human eye for acquiring the virtual image and a light measuring device configured to measure the virtual image (fig. 1; p. 1, section 0015-p. 2, section 0025; the lens focuses light from a virtual reality image to a camera system that is a light measuring device to measure the image for testing purposes). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights