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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 22, 2026 in response to the previous Office Action 02/26/2026) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 7 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 2022/0286656) in view of Cohen (US 8,520,022) in view of Toyoda (US 2017/0318208).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuoka discloses, in at least figures 1 and 8, an image processing apparatus that generates display image data for display on a display device, the image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors (101) that execute a program stored in a memory and thereby function as: an obtaining unit configured to obtain information indicating a current maximum display brightness of the display device (¶64, 68); a determining unit configured to determine a parameter for correcting at least one of noise and resolution of image data based on the information (¶63, 68); and a generating unit configured to generate display image data for display on the display device by correcting obtained image data according to the parameter (¶62, 69).
Matsuoka fails to explicitly disclose to determine, based on the information, a parameter for controlling at least one of strength of perceptual noise adjustment processing and strength of perceptual resolution adjustment processing.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cohen teaches an image display device capable of adjusting the contrast parameter of an image/video based on detected ambient lighting conditions, and the display brightness level; and the adjusting can include adjusting the video content (fig. 1, 4; c.10, ll.23-38). In light of the teaching of Cohen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cohen’s teaching in Matsuoka’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this may allow for achieving the same levels of readability with less brightness, and/or for increased readability with the same brightness. Matsuoka in view of Cohen fails to explicitly disclose generate display image data for live view display on the display device by correcting obtained image data according to the parameter.
In a similar field of endeavor, Toyoda teaches an image display device capable of reproducing, with high presence, a high-luminance portion of a subject wherein the maximum luminance for each display area is determined and a gradation characteristic is determined to use to display live view images with corrected luminance (fig. 3; ¶76-79). In light of the teaching of Toyoda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Toyoda’s teaching in Matsuoka’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in live-view imaging that is displayed with appropriate luminance and so that it is possible to provide a display image with a dazzling feeling and express high presence.
Regrading claim 2, Matsuoka in view of Cohen in view of Toyoda disclose the limitations of claim 1, Matsuoka also teaches wherein the display device is an external apparatus, and the obtaining unit obtains the information by communicating with the display device (¶29).
Regrading claim 3, Matsuoka in view of Cohen in view of Toyoda disclose the limitations of claim 1, Matsuoka also teaches the one or more processors further function as: a scene determining unit configured to determine a scene represented by the obtained image data, based on luminance of the image data; and an adjusting unit configured to adjust the maximum display brightness of the display device according to a scene determined by the scene determining unit, wherein the obtaining unit obtains information indicating maximum display brightness adjusted by the adjusting unit (¶42: the maximum display luminance of the display device 106 is preferably made different depending on the brightness of the captured scene, and this makes the range of the display luminance that represents tonal expression different).
Regrading claim 4, Matsuoka in view of Cohen in view of Toyoda disclose the limitations of claim 1, Matsuoka also teaches wherein the parameter is a parameter for correcting at least one of the noise and resolution, in an ICtCp color space (¶45).
Regrading claim 5, Matsuoka in view of Cohen in view of Toyoda disclose the limitations of claim 1, Matsuoka also teaches wherein the parameter is a parameter for suppressing change in noise and resolution perceived in display image data displayed in the display device due to change in image capture sensitivity and the maximum display brightness of the image data (¶54-55).
Claim 6 and 7 rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Matsuoka in view of Cohen in view of Toyoda.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights