DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims recite applying a local contrast enhancement algorithm to an image, adjusting parameters during the algorithm, controlling an increase of brightness based on parameter adjustment.
The limitation of applying a local contrast enhancement algorithm to an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation mathematical manipulation but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other
than reciting “computing device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from mathematical concept. For example, but for the “computing device” language, “applying” in the context of this claim encompasses the algorithmic image processing of an image. The adjusting and controlling parameters limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation mathematical manipulation of image data (brightness/contrast) using parameters but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computing device” language, “adjusting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mathematically manipulating. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
algorithmic image processing and mathematical manipulation of image data (brightness/contrast) using parameters but for using recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite a particular machine that meaningfully limits the abstract processing. References to a “computing device,” “processor,” “memory,” and “non-transitory processor-readable medium” are generic computer components. The claims do not recite a transformation of an article to a different state or thing beyond manipulation of image data; mere manipulation of electronic data is typically considered extra-solution activity or the abstract idea itself. No specific improvement to the functioning of the computer, image signal processor, GPU, or display driver is recited. The algorithm is described functionally (apply enhancement, adjust parameters, control brightness increase) without specifying particular structures, pipeline stages, or constraints that improve the computer/display technology itself. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform applying, adjusting and controlling steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (10,664,960).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15 Lee discloses
Applying, by a computing device, a local contrast enhancement algorithm to an original image (note fig. 1, block 150, local contrast enhancer);
Generating a local contrast enhanced image based on adjusting a first parameter and a second parameter during the local contrast enhancement algorithm applied to the original image (note col. 9 lines 60- col. 10 lines 30, enhances based on contrast weights); and
controlling, by the computing device, an increase of an amount of brightness for the local contrast enhanced image based on adjusting at least the first parameter during the local contrast enhancement algorithm (note col. 18 lines 24-40, local contrast enhance image based on first and second contrast weight, pixel adjusted).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16 Lee discloses,
Wherein the local contrast enhancement algorithm separately controls a positive detailed image and a negative detailed image (note fig. 6, first local processor and second local processor shows separating).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17 Lee discloses,
Wherein the local contrast enhancement algorithm provides a balance between image quality and burn-in protection for organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays (note col. 13 lines 25-32, OLED display).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18 Lee discloses,
Extracting a detail image from the original image before a luminance reduction process (note col 16 lines 17-25).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19 Lee discloses ,
Adding back the extracted detail image to the local contrast enhanced image to control balancing between edge enhancement and burn-in protection (note col. 5 lines 31-36).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20 Lee discloses,
Utilizing a target luminance buffer to control a rate of brightness reduction on a stationary region of the original image and to provide local image contrast enhancement (note col. 16 lines 17-25, luminance generator).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20 Lee discloses,
Wherein the target luminance buffer is utilized to generate a reduction weight map and a local contrast enhancement gain map (note col. 14 lines 65- col. 15 lines 4, contrast weight).
Related Prior Art
Bi et al (9,524,676) burn-in protection for organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays (note col. 5 lines 40-55).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, 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.
G.D.
February 7, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676