DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kageyama et al. (U.S. patent 2017/0140734 A1 will be further referred to as Kag).
Regarding claim 1: Kag discloses a display device (paragraphs 0002 and 0164), comprising:
memory storing a program including at least one instruction (paragraph 0014 and 0078); and
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry (abstract and paragraph 0066, 070, 0074), connected to the memory and configured to execute the at least one instruction of the program stored in the memory, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, (paragraphs 0014, 0066, 0070, and 0074) is configured to:
identify preferred intensity information indicating a first preferred intensity among a plurality of preferred intensities associated with image processing based on a low vision mode, based on an input (fig. 2 and paragraphs 0066-0068, 0090-0091, and 0125) ;
perform edge thickness adjustment processing on an input image based on edge thickness setting information corresponding to the first preferred intensity (paragraphs 0066 and 0123-0124); and
perform image quality adjustment processing on the image on which the edge thickness adjustment processing is performed, based on image quality adjustment setting information corresponding to the first preferred intensity (figs 7 and 8 and paragraph 0123),
wherein the memory includes edge thickness setting information corresponding to each of the plurality of preferred intensities and image quality adjustment setting information corresponding to each of the plurality of preferred intensities (fig. 2 and paragraphs 0123-0124), and
wherein each image quality adjustment setting information includes setting information for adjusting at least one of a brightness, a dynamic contrast ratio, a sharpness, or a color for the image according to a corresponding preferred intensity (fig. 2 and paragraphs 0047, 0091, and 0092).
Regarding claim 2: The display device of claim 1, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
identify preferred color information indicating a first color among a plurality of preferred colors associated with image processing based on the low vision mode, based on an input; and obtain edge color setting information corresponding to the first preferred color from the memory, and perform edge color adjustment processing on the input image based on the obtained edge color setting information, wherein the memory further includes edge color setting information corresponding to each of the plurality of preferred intensities (fig. 2 and paragraphs 0047 and 0082-0091).
Regarding claim 6: The display device of claim 2, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to adjust a contrast for each pixel included in the image, based on setting information for adjusting a contrast according to the first preferred intensity included in the obtained image quality adjustment setting information (fig. 2 and paragraphs 0102 and 0113-0115).
Regarding claim 10: The display device of claim 2, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to display selection information for guiding selection of one from among the plurality of preferred intensities (paragraph 0164).
Regarding claim 11: See claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: See claim 2.
Regarding claim 16: See claim 6.
Regarding claim 20: See claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama et al. (U.S. patent 2017/0140734 A1 will be further referred to as Kag).
Regarding claim 9 and similarly claim 19: Kag does not teach the features of “to remove an artifact included in the image on which the edge thickness adjustment processing is performed according to the first preferred intensity, using a trained artificial intelligence model, and wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained to reduce an artifact included in the image on which the edge thickness adjustment processing is performed according to each preferred intensity. This is a well known feature in the art of image processing. Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate this well known feature. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature to improve the quality of the image(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 13-15, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. 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.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
January 9, 2026