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: “to a reference value of each R, G and B of each display panel” should be “to a reference value of each red (R), green (G) and blue (B) of each display panel”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by rendering based on CG data” should be “by rendering based on Computer Graphics (CG) data”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the display element is an LED element” should be “wherein the display element is a Light Emitting Diode (LED) element”.
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:
acquisition unit introduce in claim 1, realized by a CPU executing a program, see par. [0043].
calculation unit introduce in claim 1, realized by a CPU executing a program, see par. [0043].
correction unit introduce in claim 1, realized by a CPU executing a program, see par. [0043].
control unit introduced in claim 4, realized by a CPU executing a program, see par. [0043].
determination unit introduced in claim 4, realized by a CPU executing a program, see par. [0043].
unit introduced in claim 7, realized by a CPU executing a program, see par. [0043].
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0260480 Hochman et al. (hereinafter Hochman).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hochman teaches an image processing apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information relating to position and orientation of an image capturing apparatus configured to capture an image of a subject with an image displayed on a display apparatus as a background (The current image capture angle and field of view may be determined by the FOY resolver, which his configured to determine the current angle and field of view of the image capture device with respect to a video display based on inputs from a camera tracking system, see pars. [0009, 0028]);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a correction coefficient corresponding to each display element included in the display apparatus, based on display position of the display apparatus and the information acquired by the acquisition unit (retrieving off-axis color uniformity characteristics for a video display at a plurality of viewing angles, determining a current viewing angle and field of view for an image capture device relative to the video display, accessing the off-axis color uniformity characteristics corresponding to the determined viewing angle and field of view, and generating a color uniformity correction layer for a video stream to be presented on the display within the determined field of view based at least on the retrieved off-axis color uniformity characteristics and the determined viewing angle and field of view., see par. [0011]); and
a correction unit configured to correct, by the correction coefficient calculated by the calculation unit, a pixel value of each pixel in an image displayed on the display apparatus (The color uniformity correction layer thus generated optionally may be communicated to a process controller associated with displaying the video on the video display, see par. [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, Hochman teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the display apparatus includes a display screen that is formed by arranging one or more display panels each of which is constituted by a display element having a brightness characteristic depending on an angle (Video walls comprised of an array of LED display tiles, see par. [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Hochman teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein the calculation unit obtains, based on the display position of the display apparatus and the information acquired by the acquisition unit, a vector oriented from each of the display elements toward the image capturing apparatus, and calculates the correction coefficient that depends on the characteristic for each display element (At a general level, such methods involve measuring color performance of specific LED tiles or video walls and providing a database to store the characteristics of these off-axis measurements for use in color correction. The database is accessible by the video wall image rendering device so that when combined with real-time information on camera view angle and field of view relative to the display, a color correction function can be incorporated into the rendering of the display portion within the field of view of the camera so as to reduce or eliminate off-axis color variations/distortions in the captured image., see pars. [0026]).
Regarding claim 6, Hochman teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the acquisition unit further acquires information relating to an angle-of-view from the image capturing apparatus, the calculation unit includes a determination unit configured to determine, based on the position of the display apparatus, the position and orientation of the image capturing apparatus, and the information relating to the angle-of-view, an area included in the angle-of-view on a display screen as a correction area, and the calculation unit calculates the correction coefficient in the correction area (Control system 16 also communicates via a wired or wireless communications link 20 (Com Link 2) with camera 12 itself, or other positioning system peripheral to the camera (not shown), to receive real-time information on the changing view angle A and changing field of view angle B. It is to be noted that the systems and methods described herein utilize as an input the camera field of view area on the surface of the display in order to determine which pixels require a color correction. Determination of field of view area requires inputs of at least physical camera position, orientation and field of view angle setting in the camera, see par. [0028] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hochman teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 6,
further comprising a unit configured to acquire information representing individual differences relating to light emission of each display panel included in the display screen of the display apparatus, wherein the correction unit further corrects the image being corrected, based on the information representing the individual differences for each display panel (Horizontal color uniformity characteristics 14', shown in FIGS. 1 and lA, are a form of color metadata and represents the relative amount of light emitted for each primary color at varying angles of view across the face of the display. Where displays are typically calibrated such that front-on (0 degrees) the display appears uniform at a desired white point (e.g., standard illuminant D65). Note that only the horizontal characteristics for the zero degree elevation is shown here. Color uniformity characteristics 14' representing color variation over view angle, is plotted in the figures of the present disclosure as relative color gain level vs. horizontal view angle (see. e.g., FIG. 1A). Other representations of the same color variation information may be employed by persons of ordinary skill, such as, but not limited to, color temperature value vs. view angle, Lxy chromaticity vs. view angle, or XYZ chromaticity vs view angle, see par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Hochman teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the information representing the individual differences is information indicating a ratio of brightness to a reference value of each of R, G and B of each display panel (color uniformity characteristics are a form of color metadata and represents the relative amount of light emitted for each primary color (RGB) at varying angles of view across the face of the display, see par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Hochman teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit generates and corrects an image displayed on the display apparatus by rendering based on CG data stored in a storage unit (As one example, on movie sets, instead of the actors performing in front of a green screen with the background later added by CGI techniques, the actors perform in front of a video wall dynamically displaying the desired background scene, which is then captured along with the actors by the camera, see par. [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Hochman teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the display element is an LED element, and the display panel is an LED panel (LED tiles, see par. [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, Hochman teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an output unit configured to output the image corrected by the correction unit to the display apparatus (Render engine 26 receives video input signals (I) and produces the video output (0) to display 14 as is understood by persons skilled in the art, see par. [0032]).
Regarding independent claim(s) 12, claim(s) is/are drawn to the method used by the corresponding apparatus in claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected for the same reasons used above (see par. [0011]).
Regarding independent claim(s) 13, claim(s) is/are drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium used by the corresponding apparatus in claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected for the same reasons used above (see par. [0055]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-5 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 4, none of the prior art cited alone or in combination provides the motivation to teach the following claimed limitations, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a control unit configured to control the correction unit, output an image being corrected to the display apparatus, and generate and output correction information relating to exposure with respect to the image capturing apparatus,
the control unit includes a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the image corrected by the correction unit includes a pixel with a value exceeding a maximum value that can be input to the display apparatus,
wherein the control unit outputs the image being corrected to the display apparatus and maintains an initial exposure amount with respect to the image capturing apparatus, when a determination result of the determination unit indicates that the image being corrected does not include any pixel with a value exceeding the maximum value that can be input to the display apparatus, or
the control unit outputs, to the display apparatus, an image obtained by performing re-correction on the image being corrected such that the pixel value becomes equal to or lower than the maximum value, and generates and outputs, to the image capturing apparatus, correction information for increasing the exposure amount based on the re-correction, when the determination result of the determination unit indicates that the image being corrected includes a pixel with a value exceeding the maximum value that can be input to the display apparatus.
Regarding claim(s) 5, claim(s) depend from claim 4 and is/are allowable for the same reasons stated above.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0146069 to Tan et al. discloses a viewing angle compensator adjusts the presentation of an image at a display so that the image has a uniform appearance to an end user at a viewing location. The angle of viewing from the viewing location to plural groups of pixels is used to compensate the pixel values in each group, such as the brightness, contrast and color presented by each pixel in each group, from original values to compensated values that make the picture appear uniform to the end user at the viewing location.
US 2013/0063575 to Jia et al. discloses a method and system for reducing crosstalk for a three dimensional display includes a processor in communication with a display configured to display three dimensional video. The processor is configured to determine a viewing angle between a section of the three dimensional display and a viewpoint of the three dimensional display, generate a crosstalk compensation function for the section of the three dimensional display, wherein the crosstalk function compensates for the crosstalk at the viewing angle, and apply the crosstalk compensation function to the section of the three dimensional display to reduce the crosstalk of the three dimensional display from the viewing angle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL L GARCES-RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-727-7564. 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.
/ANGEL L GARCES-RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 2637
/SINH TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637