DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Office Action is responsive to claims filed on 05/09/2024. Please note Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (US 20050128358 A1, cited on IDS 12/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakajima discloses an image display apparatus comprising:
a display (Fig. 9, 20); and
a signal processing device (Fig. 9, 4-6) to output an image signal to the display,
wherein the signal processing device is configured to perform dynamic contrast processing (Fig. 9, contrast compensation circuit 6) after performing sharpness processing of the image signal (Fig. 9, edge compensation circuit 5. [0003] “the sharpness adjustment function, i.e., the edge compensation function”), and adjust the sharpness of the image signal based on the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing ([0029] “In other words, the edge compensation circuit 5 is controlled by the control circuit 4 so as to decrease the compensation quantity in the luminance range (the range of LV1 to LV2) in which the luminance distribution is high and the input-output characteristics of the contrast compensation circuit 6 are made steeper” [0031] “Owing to the control heretofore described, the edge compensation is weakened when the contrast is compensated highly. Therefore, it is possible to prevent the contrast compensation circuit 6 and the edge compensation circuit 5 from amplifying the noise components doubly.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in response to an increase of the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing, the signal processing device is configured to decrease strength of the sharpness while adjusting the sharpness ([0039] “When the contrast compensation circuit 6 exercises control so as to increase the contrast, therefore, the edge compensation circuit 5 exercises control so as to decrease the compensation quantity.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, while adjusting the sharpness, the signal processing device is configured to increase the strength of the sharpness as the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing decreases ([0029] “In other words, the edge compensation circuit 5 is controlled by the control circuit 4 so as to… conversely increase the compensation quantity in the luminance range (the luminance regions below LV1 and the luminance regions above LV2) in which the luminance distribution is low and the input-output characteristics of the contrast compensation circuit 6 are made gentler (i.e., compensation is conducted so as to make the contrast lower).”).
Regarding Claim 11, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, while processing the dynamic contrast, in response to the gray level of the image signal being below the first gray level, the signal processing device is configured to control the output luminance to be lower than the input luminance, and wherein, while processing the dynamic contrast, in response to the gray level of the image signal exceeding the first gray level, the signal processing device is configured to control the output luminance to be higher than the input luminance ([0028] “The contrast compensation circuit 6 is controlled so as to make the inclination of the input-output characteristics steeper in the luminance range (the range of LV1 to LV2) indicated by the first control signal outputted from the control circuit 4 and make the inclination of the input-output characteristics gentler in luminance ranges having low luminance distribution (a luminance region below LV1 and a luminance region above LV2). At this time, the inclination of the input-output characteristics in the luminance range indicated by the first control signal is determined according to the contrast compensation quantity R contained in the third control signal supplied from the control circuit 4. The inclination of the input-output characteristics in portions other than the luminance range is also adjusted adaptively according to the contrast compensation quantity R contained in the third control signal.”).
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 of this title, 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 3-5, 7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 20050128358 A1, cited on IDS 12/17/2024), in view of Tsukagoshi (US 20120106922 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in response to the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing being large/high, the signal processing device is configured to decrease the strength of the sharpness while adjusting the sharpness ([0031] “the edge compensation is weakened when the contrast is compensated highly.”).
Nakajima does not disclose how to determine whether the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is high or low. Namely, Nakajima does not expressly disclose the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing exceeding a predetermined value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsukagoshi discloses the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is determined to be high when the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing exceeding a predetermined value ([0045] “Thus, adjustment is made to realize bright, high contrast and sharp image quality. A criterion for determining whether parameter values are high or low is whether these values are higher or lower than the parameter values of prescribed reference image quality (standard image quality), and also coincides with whether the parameter values are relatively higher or lower than the parameter values of the other color modes.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Nakajima with the feature of determining whether the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is high or low based on a comparison between the amount or slope of amplification of contrast and a predetermined value. How to determine a parameter is relatively high or low is a designer’s choice. As demonstrated by Tsukagoshi, a designer could choose to determine whether the value of the parameter is high or low based on the result of a comparison between the instant value of the parameter and a predetermined value.
Regarding Claim 4, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, while adjusting the sharpness, the signal processing device is configured to decrease the strength of the sharpness as the amount of slope of amplification increases in a state in which the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing is determined to be large/high ([0031] “the edge compensation is weakened when the contrast is compensated highly.”).
Nakajima does not disclose how to determine whether the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is high or low. Namely, Nakajima does not expressly disclose the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing exceeds a predetermined value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsukagoshi discloses the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is determined to be high when the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing exceeds a predetermined value ([0045] “Thus, adjustment is made to realize bright, high contrast and sharp image quality. A criterion for determining whether parameter values are high or low is whether these values are higher or lower than the parameter values of prescribed reference image quality (standard image quality), and also coincides with whether the parameter values are relatively higher or lower than the parameter values of the other color modes.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Nakajima with the feature of determining whether the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is high or low based on a comparison between the amount or slope of amplification of contrast and a predetermined value. How to determine a parameter is relatively high or low is a designer’s choice. As demonstrated by Tsukagoshi, a designer could choose to determine whether the value of the parameter is high or low based on the result of a comparison between the instant value of the parameter and a predetermined value.
Regarding Claim 5, Nakajima-Tsukagoshi discloses the image display apparatus of claim 3, wherein, in response to the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing being below the predetermined value, the signal processing device is configured to not adjust the sharpness (Nakajima [0032] “As the compensation control method in the edge compensation circuit 5, there is the method using the coring control and gain control as described above. As for how to use, it is effective to control the compensation quantity on the basis of the coring quantity in an image that abounds with comparatively small-amplitude noises such as an analog image.” See Figs. 4D, the sharpness compensation quantity remains unchanged while the amplitude is lower than C1).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, while adjusting the sharpness, the signal processing device is configured to increase the strength of the sharpness as the amount or slope of amplification decreases in a state in which the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing is determined to be low ([0029] “In other words, the edge compensation circuit 5 is controlled by the control circuit 4 so as to… conversely increase the compensation quantity in the luminance range (the luminance regions below LV1 and the luminance regions above LV2) in which the luminance distribution is low and the input-output characteristics of the contrast compensation circuit 6 are made gentler (i.e., compensation is conducted so as to make the contrast lower).”).
Nakajima does not disclose how to determine whether the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is high or low. Namely, Nakajima does not expressly disclose the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing is below a predetermined value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsukagoshi discloses the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is determined to be low when the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing is below a predetermined value ([0045] “Thus, adjustment is made to realize bright, high contrast and sharp image quality. A criterion for determining whether parameter values are high or low is whether these values are higher or lower than the parameter values of prescribed reference image quality (standard image quality)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Nakajima with the feature of determining whether the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is high or low based on a comparison between the amount or slope of amplification of contrast and a predetermined value. How to determine a parameter value is relatively high or low is a designer’s choice. As demonstrated by Tsukagoshi, a designer could choose to determine whether the value of the parameter is high or low based on the result of a comparison between the instant value of the parameter and a predetermined value.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites similar limitations of claim 3. The rationale of claim 3 rejection is applied to reject claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites similar limitations of claim 4. The rationale of claim 4 rejection is applied to reject claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites similar limitations of claim 5. The rationale of claim 5 rejection is applied to reject claim 16.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 20050128358 A1, cited on IDS 12/17/2024), in view of Aoki (US 20050190300 A1, cited on IDS 12/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1. In the same field of endeavor, Aoki discloses wherein the signal processing device is configured to perform noise reduction before the sharpness processing (see Fig. 1, noise reducer 8 before sharpness circuit 6. [0025] “The accompanying drawing FIG. 1 shows a basic structure of the sharpness adjusting circuit for adjusting the sharpness. As is clear from this drawing, the sharpness adjusting circuit is made up of the A/D converter 4 (corresponding to 12 in FIG. 2), the signal level detecting circuit 5 (corresponding to 16 in FIG. 2), the noise reducer (corresponding to 32 in FIG. 2), the sharpness circuit 6 (corresponding to 30 in FIG. 2), and the microcomputer (corresponding to 20 in FIG. 2) in the tuner 1 mentioned above.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Nakajima with the feature of performing noise reduction before the sharpness processing. This is a well-known and widely-implemented design to avoid amplification of noise in further processing stages.
Claims 9, 10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 20050128358 A1, cited on IDS 12/17/2024), in view of Tsukagoshi (US 20120106922 A1) and Fan (CN105578106B, cited on IDS 12/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in response to the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing being determined to be low, the signal processing device is configured to control the strength of the sharpness to be at a first value while adjusting the sharpness, and wherein, in response to the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing being determined to be high, the signal processing device is configured to control the strength of the sharpness to be at a second value lower than the first level while adjusting the sharpness ([0029] “In other words, the edge compensation circuit 5 is controlled by the control circuit 4 so as to decrease the compensation quantity in the luminance range (the range of LV1 to LV2) in which the luminance distribution is high and the input-output characteristics of the contrast compensation circuit 6 are made steeper (i.e., compensation is conducted so as to make the contrast higher) and so as to conversely increase the compensation quantity in the luminance range (the luminance regions below LV1 and the luminance regions above LV2) in which the luminance distribution is low and the input-output characteristics of the contrast compensation circuit 6 are made gentler (i.e., compensation is conducted so as to make the contrast lower).”).
Nakajima does not disclose how to determine whether the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is high or low. Namely, Nakajima does not expressly disclose the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing being below a predetermined value or the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing exceeding the predetermined value.
Nakajima also failed to teach a first level and a second level lower than the first level of the strength of the sharpness.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsukagoshi discloses the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is determined to be low (or high) when the amount or slope of amplification of contrast by the dynamic contrast processing being below a predetermined value (or exceeding the predetermined value) ([0045] “Thus, adjustment is made to realize bright, high contrast and sharp image quality. A criterion for determining whether parameter values are high or low is whether these values are higher or lower than the parameter values of prescribed reference image quality (standard image quality)”).
Furthermore, Fan discloses the signal processing device is configured to control the strength of the sharpness to be at a first level while adjusting the sharpness and the signal processing device is configured to control the strength of the sharpness to be at a second level lower than the first level while adjusting the sharpness (Fan claim 1, “the definition adjustment parameters corresponding to each sharpness level”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Nakajima with the feature of determining whether the amount or slope of amplification of contrast is high or low based on a comparison between the amount or slope of amplification of contrast and a predetermined value. How to determine a parameter value is relatively high or low is a designer’s choice. As demonstrated by Tsukagoshi, a designer could choose to determine whether the value of the parameter is high or low based on the result of a comparison between the instant value of the parameter and a predetermined value.
It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Nakajima with the feature of adjusting the strength of sharpness to be at different levels. As demonstrated by Fan, a designer could choose to discretely adjust the strength of sharpness, and this is one of the only two available options (i.e. continuous adjustment or discrete adjustment).
Regarding Claim 10, Nakajima-Tsukagoshi-Fan discloses the image display apparatus of claim 9, wherein, while adjusting the sharpness, the signal processing device is configured to gradually change the strength of the sharpness from the first level to the second level or from the second level to the first level (Fan claim 1, “the definition adjustment parameters corresponding to each sharpness level… the sharpness adjustment range decreases step by step”).
Regarding Claim 17, it recites similar limitations of claim 9. The rationale of claim 9 rejection is applied to reject claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites similar limitations of claim 10. The rationale of claim 10 rejection is applied to reject claim 18.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 20050128358 A1, cited on IDS 12/17/2024), in view of Mizobuchi (US 20150125090 A1, cited on IDS 12/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 12, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1. In the same field of endeavor, Mizobuchi discloses wherein the signal processing device is configured to adjust the sharpness of the image signal more in sports mode than in movie mode ([0112] “For example, the image quality modes includes standard mode, dynamic mode, movie mode, etc.” [0116] “Moreover, (b) of FIG. 12 illustrates relationship between the first threshold and second threshold for the standard mode and the first threshold and second threshold for the movie mode. As illustrated in (b) of FIG. 12, the first threshold and the second threshold for the movie mode are shifted toward smaller interproximal pixel luminance differences, compared with the first threshold and the second threshold of the standard mode… the edge enhancement section 140 can perform weaker edge enhancement in the movie mode than in the standard mode according to the filter selecting table of FIG. 6, thereby realizing in the movie mode a film-like image without excess contour edge enhancement.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Nakajima with the feature of adjust the sharpness of the image signal more in sports mode than in movie mode. Doing so could avoid excess contour edge enhancement and generate film-like images in the movie mode, as taught by Mizobuchi [0116].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 20050128358 A1, cited on IDS 12/17/2024), in view of Simmons (US 20200310537 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Nakajima discloses the image display apparatus of claim 1. In the same filed of endeavor, Simmons renders it obvious that while processing the dynamic contrast, the signal processing device is configured to change the color spectrum of the image signal based on contrast gain ([0479] “The spectral colors, blue, green, and red are the easiest to see. Thus, as the virtual scene (an enhanced image from the scene camera) is produced, non-spectral colors (which are a combination/blending of the spectral colors and detrimental to complex color contrast) are shifted towards the nearest spectral range.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Nakajima with the feature of changing color spectrum of the image signal based on contrast gain. As taught by Simmons, “the spectral colors, blue, green, and red are the easiest to see.” Therefore, dynamically changing the color spectrum based on the contrast gain (e.g. shifting towards the nearest spectral range when contrast is low and shifting away from spectral range while contrast is high) could improve the visibility of the image details when the contrast is low and enhance the quality of the image when the contrast is high.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONG WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5207. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/CHONG WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613