DETAILED ACTION
Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (claims 13-20), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/1/2026:
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:
“a scalar configured to:
obtain red, green, and blue (RGB) values…
calculate an average of the RGB values”
in claim 8.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1,3,6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1):
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of HSIEH et al. (TW I766417 B) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of Summons et al. (US 2016/0158641 A1):
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of Luo et al. (US 12,524,850 B1):
Claim(s) 8,10 and 1,3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of ROWE et al. (US 2022/0084659 A1):
Claim(s) 9 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of ROWE et al. (US 2022/0084659 A1) as applied in claims 8,10 further in view of HSIEH et al. (TW I766417 B) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 2:
Claim(s) 11 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of ROWE et al. (US 2022/0084659 A1) as applied in claims 8,10 further in view of Summons et al. (US 2016/0158641 A1) as applied in claim 4:
Claim(s) 12 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of ROWE et al. (US 2022/0084659 A1) as applied in claims 8,10 further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2012/0086812 A1) and Loyola Heufemann et al. (US 2022/0165006 A1):
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (claims 13-20), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/1/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
720
85
media_image1.png
Greyscale
13. (Withdrawn) A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, an image for display;
superimposing a mask over the image resulting in a masked image; and
applying a filter that includes a reticle of a red, green, and blue (RGB) value to the masked image resulting in inversion of RGB values of pixels of the reticle that overlaps the image.
14. (Withdrawn) The method of claim 13, wherein the mask includes pre-defined contours of the reticle.
15. (Withdrawn) The method of claim 13, wherein the inversion of the RGB values of the pixels of the reticle is performed pixel by pixel.
16. (Withdrawn) The method of claim 13, wherein the inversion of the RGB values of the pixels of the reticle that overlaps the image resulting in a visual effect unto the reticle.
17. (Withdrawn) The method of claim 13, wherein the inversion of the RGB values of the pixels is performed in real-time.
18. (Withdrawn) The method of claim 13, wherein a base of the filter has an RGB value of white.
19. (Withdrawn) The method of claim 13, wherein the mask and the filter are displayed at a picture-in-picture window.
20. (Withdrawn) The method of claim 13, wherein the image is displayed via a main video path.
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:
“a scalar configured to:
obtain red, green, and blue (RGB) values…
calculate an average of the RGB values”
in claim 8.
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 (fig. 2:240: “Display Device” & fig. 3:225: “Graphics Processing Unit”) described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
PNG
media_image2.png
661
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1268
900
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts (claim 8’s “display…using”) to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a scalar configured to:…
display the reticle using a complementary color”
in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
85
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 0: Establish broadest reasonable interpretation (in the footnotes);
Step 1: claim 1 is a process; claim 8 a machine (invokes 35 USC 112(f)); claim 13 (withdrawn);
Step 2A, prong 1: The claim(s)-- Claim 1 —recite(s) an abstract idea (a mental process and math):
--obtaining…red, green, and blue (RGB) values…
calculating an average of the RGB values:
1. (Original) A method comprising:
obtainingred, green, and blue (RGB) values of pixels from an area underneath a reticle;
calculating an average of the RGB values of the pixels from the area underneath the reticle; and
1.
Step 2A, prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as:
--pixels from an area underneath a reticle2;
…the pixels from the area underneath the reticle--
is not improving the technical field of optics as indicated in applicant’s disclosure:
[0043] At block 350, scalar 265, or OSD engine 275 in particular, may render the reticle with a color that is complementary to the average RGB values over the video frame. The complementary color may be chosen to create a contrast to the average RGB values for a striking3 optical effect, which allows the reticle to be “always visible.” At block 355, scalar 265, or OSD engine 275 in particular, may render the reticle with the user-selected color over the video frame.
In contrast, claim 8’s:
“a scalar configured to:
obtain red, green, and blue (RGB) values…
calculate an average of the RGB values”
invoking 35 USC 112(f) reflects a disclosed improvement at [0030]:
[0030] Off-game hardware reticles, such as crosshairs, are created to assist game players to aim and target game objects. For some implementations, in-game crosshairs have a single static color for the duration of a game. Because of this, the in-game crosshair may become difficult to distinguish from the backdrop of a scene as the color of the backdrop approaches the color of the in-game crosshair. Other game implementations include a backdrop that can overlap with the in-game crosshairs, thus hinder inga user’s view of the gameplay. To address these and other concerns, the present disclosure provides a system and method for a real-time on-screen enhancement that maintains a consistently visible off-game hardware reticle both during the gameplay and outside of games without adding to CPU or graphics processing unit (GPU) rendering time. In particular, instead of the crosshair having a static single color, the present disclosure provides a system and method that is configured to provide an adaptive color-changing crosshair.
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
--pixels from an area underneath a reticle4;
…the pixels from the area underneath the reticle--
adhere to the conventional (“graphics interface systems”) as indicated in applicant’s disclosure’s background:
[0002] As the value and use of information continues to increase, individuals and businesses seek additional ways to process and store information. One option is an information handling system. An information handling system generally processes, compiles, stores, or communicates information or data for business, personal, or other purposes. Technology and information handling needs and requirements can vary between different applications. Thus, information handling systems can also vary regarding what information is handled, how the information is handled, how much information is processed, stored, or communicated, and how quickly and efficiently the information can be processed, stored, or communicated. The variations in information handling systems allow information handling systems to be general or configured for a specific user or specific use such as financial transaction processing, airline reservations, enterprise data storage, or global communications. In addition, information handling systems can include a variety of hardware and software resources that can be configured to process, store, and communicate information and can include one or more computer systems, graphics5 interface systems, data storage systems, networking systems, and mobile communication systems. Information handling systems can also implement various virtualized architectures. Data and voice communications among information handling systems may be via networks that are wired, wireless, or some combination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1,3,6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated6 by Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1):
PNG
media_image4.png
726
352
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re 1., (Original) Beckett discloses A method (likewise) comprising7:
obtaining89 Phrase--NPL-- “,by a processor,” (such as in a computer by a CPU still in original packaging on the table) does not give order to the sequential elements of claim 1)10 (or “a cross-hair icon or reticle”, c.3,ll. 1-5 that covers a screen) a reticle (or likewise “pixel color values taken from the camera 41 to look for the reference icons 80 of (approximately) the expected size and color. Once all reference icons 80 have been displayed and identified, it is then possible to determine the relative position of the aim point 15 on the display 20.”, c.5,ll.50-55, “Such an icon 15 is preferably a cross-hair icon or reticle.”, c. 4,ll.40-45);
calculating an average of11 the RGB values of12 the pixels from the area underneath the reticle (or likewise “calculate an average of this”, c. 6,ll.5-10, wherein “this” refers to said “pixel color values taken from the camera 41 to look for the reference icons 80 of (approximately) the expected size and color. Once all reference icons 80 have been displayed and identified, it is then possible to determine the relative position of the aim point 15 on the display 20.” and said “Such an icon 15 is preferably a cross-hair icon or reticle.”); and
13.
Re 3. (Original), Beckett discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising 14.
Re 6. (Original), Beckett discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the threshold is a delta empfindung value (this limitation is directed to the contingent limitation of claim 1 and thus evidence is not presented that are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1,6 ; thus, via MPEP 2111.04 II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS, 3rd para, 5th S “"[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”).
Re 7. (Original), Beckett discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed subsequent to a user activating15 the reticle (or likewise “an aim point 15 on a display screen 20 targeted by a user”, c.4,ll. 5-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of HSIEH et al. (TW I766417 B) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image5.png
726
391
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re 2. (Original), Beckett teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising comparing the average of the RGB values with the RGB value of the reticle.
Beckett does not teach the difference of claim 2 of:
comparing (the average of the RGB values)16 with (the RGB value of the reticle).
Hsieh teach the difference of claim 2 of:
comparing (the average of the RGB values)17 with (the RGB value of the reticle) (or likewise “the average color of the surrounding area 312 for comparison with the color of the indicator 310”, pg. 14, last txt blk, 1st S).
Since Beckett suggests selecting a reticle, c.2,l. 65 to c. 3,l.10:
Preferably the steps further include step d) display an icon on the display screen at the aim point. Such an icon is preferably a cross-hair icon or reticle. The function performed in step e) is preferably an additional step f) Display one or more images on the display screen corresponding to the user input and the aim point proximate the aim point on the display screen. Such an image may be an explosion graphic or animation, or a bullet hole, or similar image. The user input may be actuation of a trigger on a handgun-shaped hand-held enclosure, for example.
, one of skill in the art would of referred to other teachings of reticules for the selection thereof and thus make Beckett’s be as Hsieh’s seeing in the change “the color…to improve its distinguishability”, Hsieh, pg. 16, 1st txt blk, 5th S, by explicit creative steps of a) installing Hsieh’s program of figure 5:502 into Beckett’s computer fig. 1:30;
b) execute Beckett’s software instructions, c. 2,ll.50-65:
“The microcomputer with the processor is adapted to follow software instructions to perform the following steps:
a) Display two or more reference icons on the display screen.
b) Detect the reference icons using an image captured with the camera and sent to the microcomputer via the I/O interface, and specifically to the camera input module.
c) Calculate the aim point relative position on the display screen based at least in part on the position of the reference icons within the field-of-view of the camera.
e) Perform a function based on user input settings and the calculated value of the aim point.
f) Repeat from step a) until stopped by the user.”
wherein step a) CALL Hsieh’s icon/reticle-color-changing program of fig. 5:502:
PNG
media_image6.png
1427
1099
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1389
1060
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of Summons et al. (US 2016/0158641 A1):
PNG
media_image8.png
726
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Re 4. (Original), Beckett teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the RGB value of the reticle is selected by a user (or likewise “targeted by a user”, c.4,ll.5-10).
Beckett does not teach the single-word (i.e., “is”) difference of:
(the RGB value of the reticle)18 is (selected by a user)19.
Summons teach the single-word (i.e., “is”) difference of:
(the RGB value of the reticle)20 is (selected by a user)21 (or likewise “be“ of “For example, a color picker with a gradient field from which a user can pick color by moving the cursor/pointer over the field and selecting a color may be used.”, Summons [0071] 3rd S.
Since Beckett suggests selecting a reticle, c.2,l. 65 to c. 3,l.10:
Preferably the steps further include step d) display an icon on the display screen at the aim point. Such an icon is preferably a cross-hair icon or reticle. The function performed in step e) is preferably an additional step f) Display one or more images on the display screen corresponding to the user input and the aim point proximate the aim point on the display screen. Such an image may be an explosion graphic or animation, or a bullet hole, or similar image. The user input may be actuation of a trigger on a handgun-shaped hand-held enclosure, for example.
, one of skill in the art would of referred to other teachings of reticules for the selection thereof and thus make Beckett’s be as Summons seeing in the change “a graphical user interface allowing a user to set preferences, review reports, author customization profiles, set device constraints, and/or otherwise receive or convey information about reticle customization to the user”, Summons, [0065], last S, by explicit creative steps:
a) installing Summon’s program of figure 7:700 into Beckett’s computer fig. 1:30;
b) execute Beckett’s software instructions, c. 2,ll.50-65:
“The microcomputer with the processor is adapted to follow software instructions to perform the following steps:
a) Display two or more reference icons on the display screen.
b) Detect the reference icons using an image captured with the camera and sent to the microcomputer via the I/O interface, and specifically to the camera input module.
c) Calculate the aim point relative position on the display screen based at least in part on the position of the reference icons within the field-of-view of the camera.
e) Perform a function based on user input settings and the calculated value of the aim point.
f) Repeat from step a) until stopped by the user.”
wherein step a) CALL Summon’s icon/reticle-color-changing program of fig. 7:700:
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of Luo et al. (US 12,524,850 B1):
PNG
media_image9.png
726
454
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Re 5. (Original), Beckett teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the area includes22 50 pixels by 50 pixels (or likewise Red pixels and Red pixels combined with Blue {R,B,G} via “{255,0, 0}, {255, 10, 0}, {255, 20, 0} . . . {255, 255, 0}” c.6,ll.45-50).
Becket does not teach the difference of claim 5 of:
50 (pixels)23 by 50 (pixels).
Luo teach the difference of claim 5 of:
50 (pixels)24 by 50 (pixels) (or likewise “a 100×100 image (e.g., an image that is 100 pixels high and 100 pixels wide) is downsampled to half size at each iteration, a first iteration of downsampling generates an image that is 50×50”, c. 36,ll.20-25).
Since Beckett teaches choosing a camera, especially with fast framerate and resolution, c.7,ll.20-25:
In choosing the camera 41 system we have two main parameters: frame rate and resolution. A slower frame rate results in a visible lag between the target (or cursor) and the user's movement. This is often seen on slower light guns and, during gameplay, can be annoying. Ideally the frame should be captured, sent to the device and the target position target_X and target_Y calculated) within one frame.
, one skill in the art of cameras would of have a reason to look at other teachings of cameras with resolutions and frame-rates and thus make Beckett’s be as Luo’s seeing in the change “video processing operations including operations to increase a frame rate of a video”, Luo, c. 4,ll. 65, by explicit creative steps of:
a) remove Becket’s fig. 3:4: “Image Processor” and replace with Luo’s fig. 1: “PROCESSOR” (comprising Luo’s down-sampling to 50 x 50 pixels program of fig, 13:1300);
b) capture images with Becket’s camera;
c) input the captured images to Luo’s fig. 1: “PROCESSOR” (comprising Luo’s down-sampling to 50 x 50 pixels program of fig, 13:1300); and
d) output the processed, captured 50 x 50 pixel images to Luo’s fig. 3:6: “Main System”.
Claim(s) 8,10 and 1,3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of ROWE et al. (US 2022/0084659 A1):
PNG
media_image10.png
731
663
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected like claim 1, except for the following differences:
Re 8. (Original), Beckett discloses A display device, comprising:
a display panel configured to display a reticle; and
a scalar configured to:
obtain red, green, and blue (RGB) values of pixels from an area underneath the reticle25;
calculate an average of the RGB values of the pixels from the area underneath the reticle26; and
if a difference between272829 the average of30 the RGB values and an RGB value of31 the reticle is less than a threshold, then32 display the reticle using a complementary color of the RGB value33 (or likewise “By making the reference points a secondary color, an extra level of information encoding can be added. For example, if a reference point is red circle of RGB value of {255, 0, 0} then we could add a graduated blue to offset errors due to rotation or aspect ratio34 differences.”, c. 6,ll. 40-45).
Beckett does not teach the difference of claim 8 of:
(if a difference between the average of the RGB values and an RGB value of the reticle)35 is less than a threshold.
ROWE teach the difference of claim 8 of:
(if a difference between the average of the RGB values and an RGB value of the reticle)36 is less than a threshold (or likewise “comparing37 the average RGB value of the image to a predetermined threshold condition such as... If the average RGB value does not satisfy the predetermined threshold condition… an error may be communicated to the user indicating that the image has failed validation38 processes”, ROWE [0093] 2nd & 4th Ss).
Since Beckett suggests selecting a reticle, c.2,l. 65 to c. 3,l.10:
Preferably the steps further include step d) display an icon on the display screen at the aim point. Such an icon is preferably a cross-hair icon or reticle. The function performed in step e) is preferably an additional step f) Display one or more images on the display screen corresponding to the user input and the aim point proximate the aim point on the display screen. Such an image may be an explosion graphic or animation, or a bullet hole, or similar image. The user input may be actuation of a trigger on a handgun-shaped hand-held enclosure, for example.
, one of skill in the art would of referred to other teachings of reticules for the selection thereof and thus make Beckett’s be as ROWE’s seeing in the change “guidance (e.g., displayed reticle) for the user… based on an on-screen reticle and/or other suitable guide displayed on a viewing screen of an imaging device. For example, a GUI of an imaging device (e.g., smartphone) may display a reticle having the same aspect ratio as a target (e.g., diagnostic test, test region of the diagnostic test, etc.), where a user may align the target with the reticle prior to capturing the image.” ROWE [0082], 5th S & [0087] penult S by explicit creative steps:
IMAGE PRE-PROCESSING STEPS (a)(b)(c)(d):
a) use Beckett’s camera of fig. 3 to obtain an image of a television showing a target (duck);
b) crop the image of the television via ROWE’s reticle and ROWE’s fig. 6:612: “Rough Crop: by adjusting the size of ROWE’s reticle to the size/shape of the target:
PNG
media_image11.png
887
472
media_image11.png
Greyscale
;
c) perform threshold comparison checks, such as said ROWE’s fig. 6:622: Lighting Check” and 624:“Orientation Check”, via ROWE’s “If the average RGB value does not satisfy the predetermined threshold condition” [0093] 4th S;
d) retake the image of the target if failed ROWE’s quality checks (via the claimed “is less than a threshold”) repeating steps a), b) and c) for the new image;
IMAGE POST-PROCESSING STEP (e):
e) otherwise use the pre-processed compared image as a good quality image for the rest of Beckett’s teachings such as offsetting the difference in rotation or aspect ratio among the television’s picture and camera’s photo by producing a complementary/secondary color by adding blue to red via Becket’s teaching, c.6,ll. 40-50:
--By making the reference points a secondary color, an extra level of information encoding can be added. For example, if a reference point is red circle of RGB value of {255, 0, 0} then we could add a graduated blue to offset errors due to rotation or aspect ratio differences. For example, the blue content of the reference icon 80 can be gradually increased from left to right. For example:
{255,0, 0}, {255, 10, 0}, {255, 20, 0} . . . {255, 255, 0}--.
Re 10. (Original), Beckett of the combination of Beckett, ROWE teacges The display device of claim 8, wherein the scalar is further configured to determine if the difference between the average of the RGB values and the RGB value of the reticle is less than the threshold, then displaying (via said IMAGE POST-PROCESSING STEP) the reticle using the RGB value.
Claim 1 is rejected like claim 8, above:
Re 1. (Original), Beckett of the combination of Beckett,ROWE teaches, under “a narrow subset of claim scope”39, A method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, red, green, and blue (RGB) values of pixels from an area underneath a reticle;
calculating an average of the RGB values of the pixels from the area underneath the reticle; and
if a difference between the average of the RGB values and an RGB value of the reticle is less than a threshold, then changing the RGB value of the reticle to a complementary color for display.
Claim 3 is rejected like claim 10, above.
Re 3. (Original), Beckett of the combination of Beckett,ROWE teaches, under “a narrow subset of claim scope”, The method of claim 1, further comprising if the difference between the average of the RGB values and the RGB value of the reticle is less than the threshold, then displaying the reticle using the RGB value.
Claim(s) 9 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of ROWE et al. (US 2022/0084659 A1) as applied in claims 8,10 further in view of HSIEH et al. (TW I766417 B) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 2:
PNG
media_image12.png
731
824
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected like claim 2 in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 2:
Re 9. (Original), Beckett of the combination of Beckett,ROWE,HSIEH teaches The display device of claim 8, wherein the scalar is further configured to compare the average of the RGB values with the RGB value of the reticle.
Claim 2 is rejected like claim 9:
Re 2. (Original), Beckett of the combination of Beckett,ROWE,HSIEH teaches , under “a narrow subset of claim scope”, The method of claim 1, further comprising comparing the average of the RGB values with the RGB value of the reticle.
Claim(s) 11 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of ROWE et al. (US 2022/0084659 A1) as applied in claims 8,10 further in view of Summons et al. (US 2016/0158641 A1) as applied in claim 4:
PNG
media_image13.png
726
577
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected like claim 4 in the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 4:
Re 11. (Original), Beckett of the combination of Beckett,ROWE,Summons teaches The display device of claim 8, wherein the RGB value of the reticle is selected by a user.
Claim 4 is rejected like claim 11:
Re 4. (Original), Beckett of the combination of Beckett,ROWE,Summons teaches , under “a narrow subset of claim scope”, The method of claim 1, wherein the RGB value of the reticle is selected by a user.
Claim(s) 12 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckett (US 11,273,367 B1) in view of ROWE et al. (US 2022/0084659 A1) as applied in claims 8,10 further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2012/0086812 A1) and Loyola Heufemann et al. (US 2022/0165006 A1):
PNG
media_image14.png
731
945
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Re 12. (Original), Beckett of the combination of Beckett,ROWE teaches The display device of claim 8, wherein the threshold is a delta empfindung value of five40 (or likewise “RGB value of {255,0,0}”, c.6,ll.40-45, wherein “255” is of or connected to or associated with “5”).
Beckett of the combination of Beckett,ROWE does not teach the difference of claim 12 of :
delta empfindung.
Zhang teach the difference of claim 12 of :
delta empfindung (or likewise “.DELTA.E.sub.ab.sup.- (where E stands for Empfindung; German for "sensation")” [0043] 2nd S).
Since Beckett teaches choosing a camera, c.7,ll.20-25:
In choosing the camera 41 system we have two main parameters: frame rate and resolution. A slower frame rate results in a visible lag between the target (or cursor) and the user's movement. This is often seen on slower light guns and, during gameplay, can be annoying. Ideally the frame should be captured, sent to the device and the target position target_X and target_Y calculated) within one frame.
one of skill in the art of cameras would of looked to other teachings of cameras to pick a camera and thus make Beckett’s of the combination of Beckett,ROWE be as Zhang’s seeing in the change “White Balance algorithms that correct for the color shift under various lighting conditions so white objects will appear white. This mimics human visual perception because the human eye is well adapted, in connection with our brains, to adjust color information it receives so that objects we know to be white appear white.”, Zhang [0003] 2nd S, and “In a particular implementation the color shift can be measured in a manner that is requires substantially less time and computational resources than conventional approaches.”, Zhang [0023] last S, via explicit creative steps:
a) select a camera with image processing;
c) obtain an image with the selected camera;
d) obtain a measurement of the obtained image based on said “.DELTA.E.sub.ab.sup.- (where E stands for Empfindung; German for "sensation")” [0043] 2nd S;
d) evaluate the selected camera based on the DELTA measurement; and
d) use the selected, evaluated camera for Beckett’s computer system if there is “a reliable measure of the overall image capture and processing capability of the camera being evaluated”, Zhang [0045] last S.
Loyola teaches claim 12 of:
delta empfindung value of five (or likewise “dE greater than 1.0” via:
[0038] Delta E (or dE) is a single number that represents the “distance” between two colors. The idea is that a dE of 1.0 is the smallest color difference the human eye can see. So any dE less than 1.0 is imperceptible and it stands to reason that any dE greater than 1.0 is noticeable. However, some color differences greater than 1 are perfectly acceptable, maybe even unnoticeable. Also, the same dE color difference between two yellows and two blues may not look like the same difference to the eye and there are other places where it can look different to the eye of the observer.
Since Zhang of the combination of Beckett, ROWE,Zhang suggests other ways to represent dEs, via Zhang [0043]:
[0043] As discussed above, the color difference between any two regions of interest can be construed as the Euclidean distance between each region R (presuming each region R is characterized as the average property for all pixels in the region). In one embodiment, a color difference can be represented as distance metric .DELTA.E.sub.ab.sup.- (where E stands for Empfindung; German for "sensation"). Using CIELAB color space, color distance .DELTA.E.sub.ab.sup.- can be represented by Eq. (4). For example, using C.sub.1 to represent a color associated with first region R.sub.1 in CIELAB color space having components (C.sub.1.sup.-, a.sub.1.sup.-, b.sub.1.sup.-) and C.sub.2 (also in CIELAB color space) as a color associated with second region R.sub.2 having color components (C.sub.2.sup.-, a.sub.1.sup.-, b.sub.2.sup.-), the color difference between first region R.sub.1 and second region R.sub.2 can be represented in CIELAB color space as:
one of skill in the art of color differences could of looked to other teachings of dE and representations thereof and thus make Zhang’s of the combination of Beckett, ROWE,Zhang be as Loyola’s seeing in the change “color differences greater than 1 are perfectly acceptable, maybe even unnoticeable”, Loyola [0038] 4th S via explicit creative steps:
a) obtain a graph program of Loyola’s “Graph G” algorithm of [0037];
b) set dE thresholds (1.0 as the lower and 10.0 as the upper) in the program;
b) obtain an image with the selected/evaluated camera with image processing;
b) calculate dE via Zhang equation (4) of [0043] based in the obtained image;
c) input the results of the calculation into Loyola’s “Graph G” program of [0037]; &
d) accept the color difference of two color pixels as imperceptible if dE is greater than 1, which includes the claimed “5”.
Claim 6 is rejected like claim 12:
Re 6. (Original), Zhang of the combination of Beckett, ROWE,Zhang,Loyola teaches , under “a narrow subset of claim scope”, The method of claim 1, wherein the threshold is a delta empfindung value.
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action:
Citation
Relevance
Александр et al. (Google Translate: Andreev Alexander Gennadyevich) (RU 133602 U1) with SEARCH machine translation. Examiner notes: 2 pgs in published document verses 10 pgs in translation
Александр (Alexander) teaches a reticle (crosshair) vicinity of 50 x 50 pixels, 7th page, 2nd txt blk:
“In the vicinity of the reticle (crosshair) 16, small fragments of 17 images are distinguished. As a rule, fragment 17 is selected with a size of 30 × 30 ... 50 × 50 pixels of a digital image of the measurement zone.”
as the closest to the claimed “the area includes 50 pixels by 50 pixels” of claim 5.
Hsieh et al. (US 12,293,435 B2): corresponds to Hsieh (TW I766417 B) as applied in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 2.
Hsieh (US 12,293,435 B2) teaches comparing an average-color with a pointer-color, c.9,ll. 45-50:
“an average color of the surrounding region 312 for comparison with color of the pointer 310”
as the closest to the claimed “comparing (the average of the RGB values) with (the RGB value of the reticle)” of claim 2. Thus, Hsieh et al. (US 12,293,435 B2) is applicable to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
1 The crossed out MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd and 4th paragraphs:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
• preamble (MPEP § 2111.02);
• clauses such as "adapted to," adapted for," "wherein," and "whereby" (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection I);
• contingent limitations (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II);
• printed matter (MPEP § 2111.05); and
• functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP § 2181).
2 reticle Optics. a network of fine lines, wires, or the like placed in the focus of the eyepiece of an optical instrument. (Dictionary.com)
3 striking: 1. attractive; impressive. 2. noticeable; conspicuous, wherein conspicuous is defined: easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable. (Dictionary.com)
4 reticle Optics. a network of fine lines, wires, or the like placed in the focus of the eyepiece of an optical instrument. (Dictionary.com)
5 graphics: (used with a singular or plural verb) computer graphics, wherein computer graphics is defined: pictorial computer output produced on a display screen, plotter, or printer, wherein display is defined: Digital Technology. the portion of an electronic device that shows this representation, as a screen, lens, or reticle. (Dictionary.com)
6 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S:
The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
7 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: :”-ing” (of “comprising”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too.
8 -ing (of “obtaining”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs (obtain, obtained, obtains), expressing the action of the verb (obtain) or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ). (Dictionary.com)
9 comma: the punctuation mark(,) indicating a slight pause in the spoken sentence and used where there is a listing of items or to separate a nonrestrictive clause or phrase from a main clause (Dictionary.com)
10 underneath: hidden, disguised, or misrepresented, as by a false appearance or pretense, wherein hidden is defined: concealed; obscure; covert, wherein conceal is defined: to hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight. (Dictionary.com)
11 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). (Dictionary.com)
12 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). (Dictionary.com)
13 The crossed out MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd and 4th paragraphs:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
• preamble (MPEP § 2111.02);
• clauses such as "adapted to," adapted for," "wherein," and "whereby" (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection I);
• contingent limitations (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II);
• printed matter (MPEP § 2111.05); and
• functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP § 2181).
14 The crossed out MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd and 4th paragraphs:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
• preamble (MPEP § 2111.02);
• clauses such as "adapted to," adapted for," "wherein," and "whereby" (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection I);
• contingent limitations (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II);
• printed matter (MPEP § 2111.05); and
• functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP § 2181).
15 activate: to make active; cause to function or act. (Dictionary.com)
16 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
17 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
18 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
19 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
20 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
21 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
22 include: to contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element, wherein contain is defined: to have as contents or constituent parts; comprise; include. (Dictionary.com)
23 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught.
24 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught.
25 35 USC 112(f) is invoked for this “obtain” limitation
26 35 USC 112(f) is invoked for this “calculate” limitation
27 CLAIM SCOPE via applicant’s disclosure:
--[0014] The following description in combination with the Figures is provided to assist in understanding the teachings disclosed herein. The description is focused on specific implementations and embodiments of the teachings and is provided to assist in describing the teachings. This focus should not be interpreted as a limitation on the scope or applicability of the teachings.—wherein scope is defined: Linguistics, Logic. the range of words or elements of an expression (claim 8) over which a modifier (e.g., a patent examiner) or operator (e.g., me) has control. (Dictionary.com)
28 CLAIM SCOPE of “between” includes semantic Dictionary.com senses:
American:
3 linking; connecting.
5 among, wherein among is defined: in the number, class, or group of; of or out of.
7 distinguishing one from the other.
8 in comparing.
9 by the combined effect of.
11 involving; concerning.
British:
2 in combination; together
3 confined or restricted to
4 indicating a reciprocal relation or comparison
5 indicating two or more alternatives
29 “among” is “taken” as “consistent with the use of the claim term” “between” “in the specification and drawings” via MPEP 2111.01 III. "PLAIN MEANING" REFERS TO THE ORDINARY AND CUSTOMARY MEANING GIVEN TO THE TERM BY THOSE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART, 4th para, 1st S.
30 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association).
31 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association).
32 then:
33 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for this system, contingent limitation
34 aspect ratio: the ratio of width to height of the picture on a television or cinema screen (Dictionary.com)
35 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
36 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
37 compare: to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences. (Dictionary.com)
38 validation: the act of confirming something as true or correct, wherein confirm is defined: to establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify, wherein verify is defined: to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination, research, or comparison, wherein comparison is defined: the act of comparing, wherein compare is defined: to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences (Dictionary.com)
39 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para:
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
40 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: five: a numeral, 5, V, etc, representing this number, wherein etc. is defined: et cetera, wherein et cetera is defined: or the like; or something else similar (Dictionary.com)
Prosecution Insights