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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action of the instant application 18/514,270 (hereinafter the ‘270 application), responsive to the amendment filed on 1/16/2026. The ‘270 application is a reissue of US Application No. 16/807,387 (hereinafter the ‘387 Application), filed March 3, 2020, which has been granted as US Patent Number 11,182,934 (hereinafter the ‘934 Patent) granted November 23, 2021.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Because the instant reissue application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act ("AIA ") will govern this reissue proceeding and all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. 37 CFR 1.171 through 1.178 are rules directed to reissue.
The broadening reissue application 18/514,270 is timely filed (11/20/2023) based on filing within two years of the issue date of US 11,182,934 B2 (11/23/2021).
Reissue Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 11,182,934 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Original Prosecution
The ‘387 application was filed on March 3, 2020.
After a series of after-final interviews the claims were further amended to include the limitations underlined below:
“1. A system, comprising:
a light source that is deficient of a first primary color;
a display device to visually present a content using light beams of the light source; and
a spectrum processing circuit to:
filter, in view of a first spectrum of the light source that is deficient of the first primary color, the first spectrum to convert the first spectrum into a second spectrum to compensate for the deficiency of the first primary color in the light source, wherein the second spectrum defines a substantially identical hue value and a substantially identical saturation value as those associated with the first spectrum, wherein the content when presented on the display device with the second spectrum of the light source substantially preserves color appearance of the visual presentation rendered on the display device by compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance, and wherein compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance taking comprises taking into account a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral transmittance function corresponding to the color of the primary light; and
provide, to the display device, the visual presentation of the content with the second spectrum of the light source."
A Notice of Allowance was mailed on 9/15/2021, with an Examiner’s Amendment establishing that “compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency” rather than stating “compensating for the effect of the deficiency”. The Examiner noted a combination of claim elements for the reasons for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claims 1-18 as amended seems to note that the “second spectrum” with “substantially identical hue values and a substantially identical saturation values”, is accomplished via the filter operation, whereas the specification makes clear that filtering alone leave the display with “visually unpleasant visual effects”. Rather to achieve the claimed “hue and saturation” preservation an additional, non-filter based, operation is performed outlined in the specification as “Color Compensation” (see column 6, lines 13 through column 7, line 67). The claim amendment makes it clear that filtering alone accomplishes this which is direct contradiction to the specification.
Additionally, claims 1-18 are amended to state that the “second spectrum” is “of a filtered light source”, where stating it this way disconnects it from the rest of the claim. The “second spectrum” is no longer the result of a conversion from a first spectrum, but rather the product of a conversion of some undefined “filtered light source”. The specification does not support such a claim limitation.
Added claims 19-21 describe the above noted filter process as being done via “filtering and performing spectral reshape” which according to the presented support and arguments appears to be part of the filtering operation as well. The term “reshape” itself doesn’t exist anywhere in the specification short of being in the title of the invention. These claims fail to find support in the specification for the same reasons as presented above and for the lack of support for what “reshape” entails.
Appropriate correction is required.
Oath / Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed 1/16/2026 is sufficient to overcome the previously applied rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251.
Recapture
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
During the prosecution of the ‘934 Patent (Application No.16/807,387), the Patent owner argued that the added limitation differentiated the claims from the prior art:
“1. A system, comprising:
a light source that is deficient of a first primary color;
a display device to visually present a content using light beams of the light source; and
a spectrum processing circuit to:
filter, in view of a first spectrum of the light source that is deficient of the first primary color, the first spectrum to convert the first spectrum into a second spectrum to compensate for the deficiency of the first primary color in the light source, wherein the second spectrum defines a substantially identical hue value and a substantially identical saturation value as those associated with the first spectrum, wherein the content when presented on the display device with the second spectrum of the light source substantially preserves color appearance of the visual presentation rendered on the display device by compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance, and wherein compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance taking comprises taking into account a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral transmittance function corresponding to the color of the primary light; and
provide, to the display device, the visual presentation of the content with the second spectrum of the light source."
In considering this recapture rejection the Examiner has evaluated the claims according to the recapture rule three-step process as set forth in In Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-18:
(1) First, I was determined, in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims. In the instant case the claims no longer include:
Claims 1-18 are amended to state that the “second spectrum” is “of a filtered light source”, where stating it this way disconnects it from the rest of the claim. The “second spectrum” is no longer the result of a conversion from a first spectrum, but rather the product of a conversion of some undefined “filtered light source”.
The provision of the content using the second spectrum, i.e. whereby second spectrum “preserves color appearance of the visual presentation”.
The claims remove the idea of “compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance”
The claims remove the idea “compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency”
(2) Next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution. Here the limitations were added to the independent claims 1 and 12 (now 11) on 12/30/2020, 5/4/2021, and / or 8/16/2021 to distinguish the '387 Application over the prior art:
Claims 1-18 are amended to state that the “second spectrum” is “of a filtered light source”, where stating it this way disconnects it from the rest of the claim. The “second spectrum” is no longer the result of a conversion from a first spectrum, but rather the product of a conversion of some undefined “filtered light source”. This issue perpetuates through the rest of the claims, effecting the “hue”, “saturation”, and “color appearance” limitations.
The provision of the content using the second spectrum, i.e. whereby second spectrum “preserves color appearance of the visual presentation”, was previously added to the claims.
The claims remove the idea of “compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance”, which was previously added to the claims.
The claims remove the idea “compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency” which was added via Examiner’s amendment in the Notice of allowance of 9/15/2021.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(3) Finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. In this regard, the claims were not materially narrowed in related aspects or were narrowed in unrelated aspects, specifically noting:
The claim are not materially narrowed
As shown above, the Applicant asserted that the added and argued limitations corresponding to described limitations patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The reissue claims do not recite these limitations. Accordingly, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for attempting to recapture surrendered subject matter.
Claims 19-22:
(1) First, I was determined, in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims. In the instant case the claims no longer include:
Claims 1-18 are amended to state that the “second spectrum” is “of a filtered light source”, where stating it this way disconnects it from the rest of the claim. The “second spectrum” is no longer the result of a conversion from a first spectrum, but rather the product of a conversion of some undefined “filtered light source”.
The provision of the content using the second spectrum, i.e. whereby second spectrum “preserves color appearance of the visual presentation”.
The claims remove the idea of “compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance”
The claims remove the idea “compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency”
(2) Next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution. Here the limitations were added to the independent claims 1 and 12 (now 11) on 12/30/2020, 5/4/2021, and / or 8/16/2021 to distinguish the '387 Application over the prior art:
Claims 1-18 are amended to state that the “second spectrum” is “of a filtered light source”, where stating it this way disconnects it from the rest of the claim. The “second spectrum” is no longer the result of a conversion from a first spectrum, but rather the product of a conversion of some undefined “filtered light source”. This issue perpetuates through the rest of the claims, effecting the “hue”, “saturation”, and “color appearance” limitations.
The provision of the content using the second spectrum, i.e. whereby second spectrum “preserves color appearance of the visual presentation”, was previously added to the claims.
The claims remove the idea of “compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance”, which was previously added to the claims.
The claims remove the idea “compensating for an effect caused by the deficiency” which was added via Examiner’s amendment in the Notice of allowance of 9/15/2021.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(3) Finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. In this regard, the claims were not materially narrowed in related aspects or were narrowed in unrelated aspects, specifically noting:
The claim are not materially narrowed
As shown above, the Applicant asserted that the added and argued limitations corresponding to described limitations patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The reissue claims do not recite these limitations. Accordingly, claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for attempting to recapture surrendered subject matter.
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 1-4, 9-14, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., U.S. Publication No. 2017/0018239, hereinafter Chen and Wu, U.S. Patent No. 10,019,925.
With regard to claims 1, 11, 19, and 22, which teach “A system (alternately a method), comprising: a light source that is deficient of a first primary color with respect to a primary light having a first spectrum; a display device to visually present a content using the light source;” Chen teaches, in paragraph 28, a light source displaying a picture using Blue, Green, and Red pixels on a display device, wherein the system utilizes a filter to substantially filter the blue light color transmission to the user.
With regard to claims 1, 11, 19, and 22, which teach “a spectrum processing device to: filter using spectral manipulation, in view of a first spectrum of the light source that is deficient of the first primary color, on the first spectrum to convert the first spectrum into a second spectrum of a filtered light source to compensate for the deficiency of the first primary color in the light source,” Chen teaches, in paragraph 29, image processor 320 that adjust the color hue of the display panel so that a weight of the blue pixel (which is restricted) of the image is compensated. The result of the compensation is the conversion of an image produced using one spectrum, the original spectrum 910, to an image produced using a second spectrum 920, that is blue light restricted and compensated for that restriction (adjust hue / grey levels / etc.), in order to maintain good color balance (see paragraphs 40-41 and 44-46 and figure 9).
With regard to claims 1, 11, 19, and 22, which teach “wherein the filtered light source having the second spectrum defines a substantially identical hue value and a substantially identical saturation value as those associated with the first light source spectrum, wherein a color appearance of the content when presented on the display device of using the filtered light source having the second spectrum is substantially preserved by compensating for the deficiency of the first primary color,” Chen teaches, in paragraphs 29, 41, 44 and 49, that the second spectrum (that is blue light limited) is produced so as to compensate for the lack of blue light to maintain a consistent hue / color balance from the original image.
With regard to claims 1, 11, 19, and 22, which teach “wherein compensating for the deficiency of the first primary color comprises taking into account a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral transmittance function corresponding to the color of the primary light;” Chen teaches, in paragraphs 29, 31, and 44-46 and figures 4 and 9, taking into account the changed spectral transmittance and emission spectrum of the blue color that is being restricted in the compensation of the produced image, specifically noting ‘adjust(ing) the frame data’, ‘adjust driver settings’, ‘increase voltage levels corresponding to grey level provided to the blue pixels’, and / or ‘reduce gray levels provided to the red and green pixels to compensate the color balance impact’.
With regard to claims 1, 11, 19, and 22, which teach “provide to the display device the visual presentation of the content with the second spectrum of the filtered light source”; Chen teaches, in paragraphs 44-46, providing the visual presentation of the content with the modified spectrum of the filtered light source.
Chen is not specific about other types of image compensations for improving a deficient image projection, such as saturation, nor does it note taking into account of a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells.
However, Wu teaches a spectrum processing circuit (Wu; processer (i.e. spectrum processing circuit) (Col. 4, line 21 to Col. 5, line 11)) to: reshape, taking into account of an effect of deficiency of the first primary color in the light source, a spectrum of a visual presentation of the content to compensate for the deficiency of the first primary color in the light source (Wu; processor (e.g. spectrum processing circuit), as addressed above, configured to reshape/modifying a spectrum of a visual presentation of the content to compensate for the implicit deficiency of the 1st primary color in the light source taking into account of an effect of implicit deficiency of the 1st primary color in the light source (Col. 2, lines 23-55 and Col. 4, line 62 to Col. 5, line 22)); moreover, color saturation compensation (Col. 3, line 35 to Col. 6, line 33), wherein the content associated with the reshaped spectrum when presented on the display device substantially preserves color appearance of the visual presentation rendered on the display device and substantially preserves a hue of the visual presentation by compensating for the effect of the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance (Wu; the content associated with the reshaped/modified spectrum when presented on the display device substantially preserves/protects color appearance of the visual presentation rendered on the display device and substantially preserves a hue (i.e. variety of a color) of the visual presentation by compensating for the effect of the deficiency of the 1st primary color on the color appearance (Col. 2, lines 23-35 and Col. 4, line 62 to Col. 3, line 22); moreover, color compensation (Col. 6, lines 23-35 and Col. 6, line 54 to Col. 7, line 14), and wherein taking into account of an effect of deficiency of the first primary color in the light source comprises taking into account of a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral transmittance function corresponding to the color of the primary light (Wu; taking into account of an effect of implicit deficiency of the 1st primary color in the light source comprises taking into account of a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral output/transmittance function corresponding to the color of the primary light; (Col. 3, lines 36-54, Col 5, lines 35-53, and Col. 6, line 36 to Col. 7, line 2); and
provide, to the display device, the visual presentation of the content with the reshaped spectrum to display using the light beams (Wu: processor (i.e. spectrum processing circuit), as addressed above, configured to provide the visual presentation of the content with the reshaped/modified spectrum to display using the light beams to the display device (Col. 3, lines 36-54 and Cal. 6, line 36 to Col. 7, line 14)).
Chen and Wu are considered to be analogous art because they both pertain to computerized systems that manipulate data to maintain image quality when conditions degrade aspects of image quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Chen to incorporate a spectrum processing circuit to: reshape, taking into account of an effect of deficiency of the first primary color in the light source, a spectrum of a visual presentation of the content to compensate for the deficiency of the first primary color in the light source, wherein the content associated with the reshaped spectrum when presented on the display device substantially preserves color appearance of the visual presentation rendered on the display device and substantially preserves a hue of the visual presentation by compensating for the effect of the deficiency of the first primary color on the color appearance, and wherein taking into account of an effect of deficiency of the first primary color in the light source comprises taking into account of a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral transmittance function corresponding to the color of the primary light; and provide, to the display device, the visual presentation of the content with the reshaped spectrum to display using the light beams (as taught by Wu), in order to provide improved media data that allows said media to be viewable to the eyes of an observer (Wu; Col. 1, lines 16-53 and Col. 3, lines 36-54).
With regard to claims 2 and 12, which further teach “further comprising: a light emitter to provide the light source that comprises one or more primary colors but is deficient of the first primary color”, Chen teaches, in paragraph 28, a light source displaying a picture using Blue, Green, and Red pixels on a display device, wherein the system utilizes a filter to substantially filter the blue light color transmission to the user. This displays device is noted to be in the form of an LCD or and LED (see paragraphs 32 and 34), such as that on a smartphone (see paragraph 39).
With regard to claims 3 and 13, which further teach “wherein the first primary color occupies the substantial portion of the spectrum energy within a wavelength band between 400 nanometer (nm) and 700 nm”, Chen teaches, in paragraph 4-5 and 28, filtering blue light color transmission which is noted to be in the range of 380 nm – 480 nm, while specifically noting limiting the 450 nm wavelength.
With regard to claims 4 and 14, which further teach “wherein the display device comprises at least one of a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel, a light-emitting diode display (LED) panel, or an organic light-emitting diode display (OLED) panel”, Chen teaches, in paragraphs 32, 34, and 39, the display device being noted to be in the form of an LCD or and LED, such as that on a smartphone.
With regard to claim 9, which further teach “wherein to perform spectral manipulation the first spectrum, the spectrum processing device is to preserve a white point of the display device”, Chen teaches, in paragraphs 29 and 31, to ‘increase voltage levels corresponding to grey level provided to the blue pixels’, and / or ‘reduce gray levels provided to the red and green pixels to compensate the color balance impact’, thereby preserving the white point.
With regard to claims 10 and 18, which further teach “wherein the spectrum processing device comprises an optical device, and wherein the optical device is to filter spectra of primary colors of the light source”, Chen teaches, in paragraph 28, the primary colors being filtered by an optical filter element.
With regard to claim 20, further teaching “wherein compensating for the deficiency of the first primary color comprises taking into account a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, and wherein the optical spectrum reshape apparatus is to perform spectral reshape on light exiting the light source, or on light exiting the display device”; Wu teaches taking into account of an effect of deficiency of the first primary color in the light source comprises faking into account of a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, to control reshaping the output image to compensate (see Wu; taking into account of an effect of implicit deficiency of the 1st primary color in the light source comprises taking into account of a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral output/transmittance function corresponding to the color of the primary light; [Col. 3, lines 36-54, Col 5, lines 35-53, and Col. 6, line 36 to Col. 7, line 2]); and
provide, to the display device, the visual presentation of the content with the reshaped spectrum to display using the light beams (see Wu: processor (i.e. spectrum processing circuit), as addressed above, configured to provide the visual presentation of the content with the reshaped/modified spectrum to display using the light beams to the display device [Col. 3, lines 36-54 and Col. 6, line 36 to Col. 7, line 14]).
With regard to claim 21, further teaching “wherein optical spectrum reshape apparatus comprises at least one of a surface coating, a color filter, or a diffraction grating being deployed at one of a display panel of the display device, the light source associated with the display device, or wearable glasses”; Chen further teaches, in paragraphs 53 and 54 and in figure 12, the optical spectrum reshaping apparatus includes a wearable device where a filter is placed in front of the display.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Wu as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Aragane et al., US PGPUB No. 20160140913, hereinafter Aragane.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, which teach “wherein the spectrum processing device is further to: determine, in view of the light source that is deficient of the first primary color, whether a first pixel of the visual presentation of the content is within a display gamut volume associated with the display device; responsive to determining that the first pixel is outside the display gamut volume, identify a second pixel within the display gamut volume, wherein the second pixel comprises an identical hue value and an identical saturation value as the first pixel but a scaled lightness value of the first pixel; replace the first pixel with the second pixel; and provide, to the display device, the visual presentation of the content with the second spectrum of the light source”; Chen and Wu further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the spectrum processing circuit comprises a processing device (supra), and wherein to reshape the spectrum (supra).
Chen and Wu fail to disclose determine whether a first pixel of the visual presentation of the content is within the display gamut volume; responsive to determining that the first pixel is outside the display gamut volume, identify a second pixel within the display gamut volume, wherein the second pixel comprises an identical hue value and an identical saturation value as the first pixel but a scaled lightness value of the first pixel; and replace the first pixel with the second pixel.
Aragane teaches to (Aragane; calculating of the compensation color scheme [¶ 0069-0070 and ¶ 0100]):
determine, in view of the light source that is deficient of the first primary color, whether a first pixel of the visual presentation of the content is within the display gamut volume (Aragane; to determine whether a 1st pixel of the visual presentation of content is within the display gamut volume (i.e. spectrum or color space) in view of light (i.e. light source) that is reduced/deficient of the 1st primary color (i.e. blue) [¶ 0097 and ¶ 0110], as depicted by the color space of Figs. 9A-B and Fig. 12B; wherein, a 1st pixel corresponds to a dashed line circle);
responsive to determining that the first pixel is outside the display gamut volume (Aragane; the display apparatus, as addressed above, is further configured to implicitly be responsive to determining that the 1st pixel is outside the display gamut volume (i.e. spectrum or color space) as illustrated within Fig. 9A [¶ 0097], given that the dashed line circle outside of the color space HLS is reduced to a point within the color space), identify a second pixel within the display gamut volume (Aragane; the display apparatus, as addressed above, is further configured to implicitly identify a 2nd pixel within the display gamut volume (i.e. spectrum or color space) [¶ 0085 and ¶ 0097], as depicted within Figs. 9A-B; moreover, HLS [¶ 0090 and ¶ 0094-0095]; wherein, a 2nd pixel corresponds to a solid line circle), wherein the second pixel comprises an identical hue value and an identical saturation value as the first pixel but a scaled lightness value of the first pixel (Aragane; the 2nd pixel comprises an identical hue and identical saturation value as illustrated within Figs. 9A-B as the 1st pixel [¶ 0097 and ¶ 0104] and wherein the 2nd pixel is different from the 1st pixel in scale of lightness/luminance value as illustrated within Figs. 9A-B [¶ 0097, ¶ 0104, and ¶ 0122], as depicted within Fig. 9A-B); and
replace the first pixel with the second pixel (Aragane; the display apparatus, as addressed above, is further configured to replacing the 1st pixel with the 2nd pixel [¶ 0097], as shown within Figs. 9A-B).
Chen in view of Wu and Aragane are considered to be analogous art because they both pertain to computerized systems that manipulate data associated with imaging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Chen as modified by Wu, to incorporate to: determine, in view of the light source that is deficient of the first primary color, whether a first pixel of the visual presentation of the content is within the display gamut volume; responsive to determining that the first pixel is outside the display gamut volume, identify a second pixel within the display gamut volume, wherein the second pixel comprises an identical hue value and an identical saturation value as the first pixel but a scaled lightness value of the first pixel; and replace the first pixel with the second pixel (as taught by Aragane), in order to provide a reduced harm to a user’s eyes when displaying media data (Aragane; [¶ Abstract, ¶ 0001-0002, and ¶ 0005)).
With regard to claims 6 and 16, which further teach “wherein to perform spectral manipulation on the first spectrum, the spectrum processing device is further to: apply one of an edge-preserving filter or a low-pass filter to a scale factor map comprising a plurality of scale factors to generate a second scale factor; and use the second scale factor to scale a lightness value of the first pixel”, Wu further teaches, in column 5, lines 35-53, preserving characteristics of the original image by applying a scale factor to determine the amount of compensation for saturation levels of the reproduced compensated image.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Wu as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Gally et al., US PGPUB No. 2006/0067633, hereinafter Gally.
With regard to claim 7, which teaches “wherein the light source is further deficient of a second primary color corresponding to the spectrum energy in a second wavelength band”, Chen teaches, in paragraph 4-5 and 28, filtering light color transmission which is noted to be in the range of 380 nm – 480 nm. Where both violet and blue fit into that range, but don’t specifically teach a different primary color.
Gally further discloses a system for reshaping the spectrum of a visual presentation (see paragraphs 82-83 and 86-87), through us of a filter (see paragraphs 71, 78, and 81-82), and to change / reshape the RBG color space (see paragraphs 85-85). Gally further teaches wherein the light source is further to substantially remove the spectrum energy in a second wavelength band (Gally; the light (i.e. light source) [¶ 0081 and ¶ 0083] to subjectively substantially remove/filter the spectrum energy in a another / 2nd wavelength band [¶ 0082 and ¶ 0085-0087]; moreover, filtering a light source that comprising one or more primary colors [¶ 0041, ¶ 0060, ¶ 0064, and ¶ 0066] to subjectively substantially remove/filter the color strength (i.e. spectrum energy) in another wavelength band [¶¶0085-0087] associated with primary colors (i.e. red, green, blue) [¶ 0060, ¶ 0064, and ¶ 0066]; and moreover, only allow the desired wavelength of light to pass into and out of the device [¶ 0082-0083 and ¶ 0085- 0086], as depicted within Fig. 11; wherein, another / 2nd spectrum energy in a wavelength band corresponds to another color in a another color range; and wherein, color aspects are controlled for the display 30 [¶ 0082 and ¶ 0087]; in addition, a wavelength filer corresponds to one or more layers [¶ 0071], as further depicted within Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to utilize the color space modifications of Gally, in the systems of Chen and Wu. One would have been motivated as the art exists in the same space where Gally just further enables more divers color adaptations.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Wu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Andersson et al., US PGPUB No. 20180160126, hereinafter Andersson.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, which further teach “wherein the light source is configured to maximize a display gamut associated with the display device while minimizing the spectrum energy within the wavelength band of the color received by the retina cells using an optimization solver, and wherein the optimization solver is a gradient descent solver”; Chen and Wu further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the light source is configured to maximize a display gamut associated with the display device while minimizing the spectrum energy within the wavelength band of the color received by the retina cells using a filter (supra)
Chen and Wu fail to disclose an optimization solver, and wherein the optimization solver is a gradient descent solver.
However, Andersson teaches using an optimization solver (Andersson; using an optimization solver [¶ 0092-0094]), and wherein the optimization solver is a gradient descent solver (Andersson; the optimization solver is a gradient descent solver [¶ 0092-0094]).
Chen and Wu and Andersson are considered to be analogous art because they both pertain to computerized systems that manipulate data associated with imaging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Chen and Wu, to incorporate using an optimization solver, and wherein the optimization solver is a gradient descent solver (as taught by Andersson), in order to provide eye protection and improved content that is high dynamic range (Andersson; [Abstract, ¶ 0002-0005, and ¶ 0007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but in many cases are moot because the new ground of rejection. Any relevant arguments will be addressed below.
Examiner Note: It is unclear why the arguments ignore the primary reference Chen. The arguments will nevertheless be responded to with the reference best supporting the argued limitation.
Patent Owner argues “First, Wu does not teach or suggest the claimed "filter[ing] using spectral manipulation" of a light source spectrum or converting a first light-source spectrum into a second spectrum of a filtered light source. Wu's disclosed operation is directed to (i) obtaining screen/ambient brightness, (ii) deciding whether to enable a color enhancement mode, and (iii) performing "color saturation compensation" to enhance saturation of an original image for display. See, e.g., Wu col. 2, lines 1-5 and col. 2, lines 15-22; see also Wu col. 3, lines 34-43. Wu's disclosed "compensation" is implemented by adjusting image data, including optionally transforming an image between color domains (RGB/HSV/YUV, etc.), performing saturation compensation in that domain, and transforming back. See Wu col. 7, lines 1-14. Nothing in these cited portions discloses spectral manipulation/filtering of emitted light, much less "converting a first spectrum of a light source into a second spectrum of a filtered light source," as required by claim 1.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that Chen teaches, in paragraph 29, image processor 320 that adjust the color hue (or grey level or the like) of the display panel so that a weight of the blue pixel (which is restricted) of the image is compensated. The change of the hue for an image is a shift in the dominant wavelength of the spectrum, thereby modifying the spectrum as a whole. The result of the compensation is the conversion of an image produced using one spectrum, the original spectrum 910, to an image produced using a second spectrum (920 or the like), that is blue light restricted and compensated for that restriction (adjusted hue / grey levels / etc.), in order to maintain good color balance (see paragraphs 40-41 and 44-46 and figure 9).
Patent Owner argues “Further, Wu does not teach or suggest any "deficiency of the first primary color in the light source." The Office characterizes Wu as compensating for an "implicit deficiency of the 1st primary color in the light source." See Office Action, page 15. However, Wu does not disclose a light source deficient of any primary color. Rather, Wu addresses a different problem: under low brightness conditions, human eyes have increased difficulty identifying colors; Wu responds by increasing saturation of image data. See, e.g., Wu col. 1, lines 22-34 and Wu col. 3, lines 34- 43. That is not a primary-color-deficient light source and not a deficiency that can be "compensated" by spectral manipulation/filtering of the light source spectrum.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that with regard to recognizing the deficiency, Chen teaches, in paragraphs 29, 31, and 44-46 and figures 4 and 9, taking into account the changed spectral transmittance and emission spectrum of the blue color that is being restricted in the compensation of the produced image (recognized deficiency). Chen the adjusts to compensate, specifically noting ‘adjust(ing) the frame data’, ‘adjust driver settings’, ‘increase voltage levels corresponding to grey level provided to the blue pixels’, and / or ‘reduce gray levels provided to the red and green pixels to compensate the color balance impact’.
Wu further implements similar color compensation while performing color saturation compensation (see Col. 4, line 62 to Col. 5, line 22).
Patent Owner argues “Further, Wu does not teach the limitation of taking into account a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral transmittance function for a primary color. The Office refers to Wu (e.g., at Col. 3, lines 36-54, Col 5, lines 35-53, and Col. 6, line 36 to Col. 7, line 2) as allegedly disclosing these features. But the cited passages actually describe a human eye color sensibility function/value that varies with brightness, and computing a saturation compensation factor such as a ratio S(K)/S(i') to compensate saturation of an original image. See Wu col. 5, lines 35-53 and col. 6, lines 35-65 (discussion of the sensibility function and how saturation compensation is performed). Wu's "sensibility" is a brightness-dependent perceptual sensitivity model; and Wu does not describe any pixel emission spectrum or any spectral transmittance/output function for a primary color (nor any optical filtering stage that would use such spectral parameters). Therefore, Wu's disclosure stays in the domain of image data/saturation and color space transforms, not spectral-domain modeling and spectral filtering.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that Chen teaches, in paragraphs 29, 31, and 44-46 and figures 4 and 9, taking into account the changed spectral transmittance and emission spectrum of the blue color that is being restricted in the compensation of the produced image, specifically noting ‘adjust(ing) the frame data’, ‘adjust driver settings’, ‘increase voltage levels corresponding to grey level provided to the blue pixels’, and / or ‘reduce gray levels provided to the red and green pixels to compensate the color balance impact’.
Wu supplements here by taking into account of an effect of deficiency of the first primary color in the light source comprises taking into account of a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral transmittance function corresponding to the color of the primary light (Wu; taking into account of an effect of implicit deficiency of the 1st primary color in the light source comprises taking into account of a spectral sensitivity profile associated with retina cells, an emission spectrum associated with a pixel, and a spectral output/transmittance function corresponding to the color of the primary light; (Col. 3, lines 36-54, Col 5, lines 35-53, and Col. 6, line 36 to Col. 7, line 2).
Patent Owner argues “Further, Wu does not meet (and cannot reasonably be stretched to meet) the amended "filtered light source/second spectrum" limitations. Amended claim 1 require filtering using into spectral manipulation "the first spectrum of the light source" to "convert the first spectrum a second spectrum of a filtered light source," and new claims 19-21 further require an optical spectrum reshape apparatus. Wu discloses no optical spectrum reshape apparatus, no filtering of the light source spectrum, and no conversion of a deficient light source spectrum into a second spectrum. Wu's processor merely outputs a compensated image for display.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that Chen teaches, in paragraph 29, image processor 320 that adjust the color hue of the display panel so that a weight of the blue pixel (which is restricted) of the image is compensated. The result of the compensation is the conversion of an image produced using one spectrum, the original spectrum 910, to an image produced using a second spectrum (920), that is blue light restricted and compensated for that restriction (adjust hue / grey levels / etc.), in order to maintain good color balance (see paragraphs 40-41 and 44-46 and figure 9).
Summary
Claims 1-21 are REJECTED.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Please note the relevant cited prior art listed on the accompanying Notice of References Cited (Form PTO-892). Said cited prior art specifically teaching systems for adjusting display characteristics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS G BONSHOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4047. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:15 - 4:45.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Kosowski can be reached on 571-272-3744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DENNIS G BONSHOCK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ROBERT L NASSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992